Thursday, March 14, 2013

The Photographic-Handover

You have a fun day with a bunch of friends, one of which takes a metric tonne of photos with their camera, and you think you're going to get a link to them later on, but then that night, they wrangle them onto their computer, lock them up and melt down the metaphorical key for scrap…and nobody can ever have them. It's always too hard for them. And they're not wrong; it is really hard to give photos. I mean if only there was a massive library we could access via our computers where we could put our stuff for other people to access from their computers. Actually that's not a bad idea. Perhaps I'll call it...the 'internet'!

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooa!

So when it comes to that time when you’re like ‘hey man, can I have those super-rad photos please?’, they’re going to say one of two completely moronic things: first one is ‘oh, but they’re on Facebook?’, like that's a solution, and the second is ‘ah yeah, I’ll go home tonight and put them on a thumb-drive/CD/floppy-disk for you’.

Right off the bat, I don’t want to be too hard on people, but the Facebook response is as dumb as dog-shit. It's not a photo-sharing site? It's not even like a photo-sharing site, so why treat it like it is? Facebook's just a place to put your pictures so that smartarses like me can make our little smartarse comments and then make a decision on whether we like or secretly dislike them, similar to critics at a catwalk.

Firstly, Facebook isn’t a viable substitute because it has no ‘download all’ feature. So say that there are a hundred photos. That means that I have to click ‘download’, 'next' and possibly 'save' a hundred times each. So 'unnecessary chore' in my language must actually mean 'answer' in their language.

Secondly, this may not be such a big deal to some, but a great deal of the photos on Facebook aren't that big. Don’t forget, It was only a couple of years ago that it added the ability to upload high resolution photos, before that you had no choice but to have the photos automatically resized down to something I could considerably obscure using my hand. In spite of that though, many of my friends still aren’t ticking the high resolution box when they’re uploading anyway, which bedazzles me even more when they think that Facebook is the answer.

Now, if you’re scratching your head because you're not real sure what the big deal is, it’s a personal preference of mine to have the originals and not the resized versions. If that’s not possible, then I’ll settle for something that will fill my twenty one inch computer screen. The reason is very simple: the future. What if it’s an amazing photo? I may decide to show my family on a big screen television or a projector, or I may want to frame it or have it printed on a canvas. With something tiny, I can't do any of that, I can't do a real lot of anything apart from stick it in my wallet. But with a big one like what every camera takes now, I have a lot of breathing room to do whatever my black ass desires.

So telling me to go on Facebook to get photos is basically as good as pointing and laughing in my face!

Numero Twoplah: why are we still treating the photographic-handover like it needs to be a face-to-face transaction? They're all like 'yeah, yeah, I've got your photos man. Can you drop your flash drive by my work tomorrow? Then you can leave, come back another day and pick it up.' What is this? The 90s? Give me a fucking break! Like I said, half the time they're already sitting on Facebook anyway and this arsehole wants me to make two special trips to his work because he won't use Flickr. Fuck him! He can keep them if he wants them so badly!

I don't know what's more frustrating: the realisation that people my age use the internet so much and yet they never actually use it, or just knowing the simple fact that people are making a painless, trivial matter so complicated. Do they not realise that they've already got the uploading principle down and now they just need to apply it to a site that isn't a social networking site? Do they not realise that there are hundreds of free photo-sharing sites out there...literally hundreds? Do they not realise that if they have Hotmail or Gmail accounts - which pretty much covers everybody short of my grandparents and the people you see in World Vision ads - that they already have either a SkyDrive or Picasa account, two fully-featured free photo sites? But no, no! Why better utilise the internet when we have writable CDs?

No comments:

Post a Comment