[Closed] Digital photoframes......Why?

Most people don't want photos as a work of art. They prefer them as snapshots and memories of events, so yes they leave them cycling through cards of nice images they like to remember. I'd prefer a hundred snapshots of fun times over a single high quality shot of one thing. If I wanted that I'd get it printed on canvas and hang it (and I do take shots I'd like to hang too BTW)....

[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/4512355193_b017e1804b_b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/4512355193_b017e1804b_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Convince me they are good.

what's the point of doing that?

You're not obliged to have one if you don't want it. I got one for my mum and was quite reluctant to hand it over when the time came - I'd watch it rapt for minutes on end as the shots changed.

That'll be your famous bum shots simon 😉

That'll be your famous bum shots simon

one can never tire of those :o)

what's the point of doing that?

No real reason, I'm just intrigued and I would assume people buy them as they provide something positive, nothing sinister, just that.

Maybe as a way of showing the snapshots to friends, as in passing around the snaps in the old days, I can see. But something constantly flashing in the background..........

But something constantly flashing in the background..........

if you don't like it flashing you can use a smooth fade 🙂

But something constantly flashing in the background..........

Do you have photos hung/displayed in your house? Ever think you'd like more but don't have the room? Feel like a change? If not you're quite unusual, as the sale of DPFs would suggest.

I am with the OP - I am not keen on them but my mum wants one so who am I to argue?

Personally I'm waiting for a digital frame that:
• looks like a traditional wooden frame
• is proper high resolution (say 150dpi)
• uses nice passive display technology with accurate colours
• connects via wifi to show me my friends pictures from flickr/facebook/picasa/wherever.

Not sure how you're going to get a passive display device.

I'm in the middle of building a 12" DPF that does the wifi flickr link though, but it won't be in a nice wooden frame, it's using an old laptop re-packaged.

just a quick hijack, do you plug them in, or do they run on batteries? If batteries how long do they last, or do you charge it via USB?

Depends on the one you get. Some do have battery packs (few) but most are plugged in.

I am not keen on them but my mum wants one so who am I to argue?

waste of energy in my opinion 😉

Think about the two complaints of normal photos.

1) You print them and then throw them in a draw to never see them again except...
2) when you get them out to show someone and bore them to death with the whole album.

This removes both problems. Thousands of shots on a card the size of a thumbnail (and can be printed if required) and on display quietly in a corner as a conversation starter rather than as a focal point for 2 hours.

GrahamS:

Personally I'm waiting for a digital frame that:

Sounds like you want an iPad 🙂

<retires to safe distance>

I'd quite like one, but a bit bigger than the 2x3" ones you get in Jessops etc. I was at the Wildlife Tographer of t'Year at the NHM yesterday, and they had pics displayed in large backlit frames, about 30x20". Looked stunning. I'd like something that size actually, with a slideshow constantly running.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

yuk broccoli 🙁

Digital photo frames are an excellent example of why the "let's all just use less energy we don't need nuclear/wind/magicbeans power" argument that you often hear is bogus.

🙁

We have one.

Our rationale:

We went digital in 2003. We have approximately 5GB of footage per year and just like real photographic paper pictures, they're stored somewhere and hardly ever looked at.

Since 2003 we've had two children and loads of happy times, but it often takes a picture to remind us of all those times since life is so busy now.

We've cherry picked the best 300 shots ( and it continues to grow)and set it to random so that it can do that.

Its a constant and visible reminder of times we would have otherwise forgotten. Its also good to look back at how much the kids have changed already.

If I wanted high art on my wall, I'd go the HQ print and artwork route, but IMO, that's not what digital frames are for.

In terms of energy consumption, its 9W. About the same as your freeview digital box.

They make home feel like Tracy island.

Do you have photos hung/displayed in your house? Ever think you'd like more but don't have the room? Feel like a change? If not you're quite unusual, as the sale of DPFs would suggest.

Of course I have photos hanging in the house, quite a lot actually. If I want more room I'll build an extension. 😉
I also change the pictures from time to time, not because I'm bored of them or because I want a change a lot of pictures are samples I have hanging around. My personal photos haven't changed in the last couple of years though.
I suppose the DPF is a sign, to me, of the throw away society, "OK, I've seen that picture for 15 secs, NEXT!"

2) when you get them out to show someone and bore them to death with the whole album.

and they had pics displayed in large backlit frames, about 30x20

with a slideshow constantly running.

Its a constant and visible reminder of times we would have otherwise forgotten. Its also good to look back at how much the kids have changed already.

If I wanted high art on my wall, I'd go the HQ print and artwork route, but IMO, that's not what digital frames are for.

Not sure how you're going to get a passive display device.

Yep full colour hi-res eink (Electrophoretic) display tech isn't quite there yet. But give it a year or two.

I'm in the middle of building a 12" DPF that does the wifi flickr link though, but it won't be in a nice wooden frame, it's using an old laptop re-packaged.

Yeah I've seen a few good laptop-to-DPF projects on the web. Probably the way to go in the short term. I have an old laptop ready to try it with, but the crappy (1024x768 backlit) display is the real issue.

Sounds like you want an iPad

To hang on the wall? Seems an expensive way to solve it. And it's still a backlit display.

I was at the Wildlife Tographer of t'Year at the NHM yesterday,

Shibboleth.

You're giving yourself away Fred 😀

GrahamS: my dad has a digital photo frame that would meet your requirements. I'm pretty sure it was very very expensive mind. It's a photovu one

but the crappy (1024x768 backlit) display is the real issue.

Not really an issue I recognise though, unless you're attempting to compare digital with film prints. Base it on a decent quality laptop and use a screen calibration system and it's as good as you'll ever care about, although obviously always going to be backlit.

Since 2003 we've had two children and loads of happy times, but it often takes a picture to remind us of all those times since life is so busy now.

[img] [/img]

Our daughters did this for mummy on her first mother's day... ('ickle pegs mean we can add, swap, change as much as we want)

Yup, but it give them a month and they'll be curled and tatty, and it covers half your wall. Each to their own though 🙂

They were very nearly not there at all yesterday - Izzi grabbed a handful and almost ripped it all down 🙂

We do spend time looking at it. Often it'll catch our eye as we walk past it and we spend time talking about the events in the picture too.

very very expensive mind. It's a photovu one

Unstated requirement: should be a reasonable price!

Anyway I think the photovu ones are also backlit LCD anyway.

although obviously always going to be backlit.

that's the main thing I have a problem with. The minute it is a transmissive display, rather than reflective, it becomes a light source that draws the eye, especially in a dimly lit living room.

My "dream" frame would just be something you'd only notice the picture on occassionally, much like a traditional one. It could be set to update the picture once an hour, once a day or even week. So it would use hardly any power and not be constantly flickering away.

I think I prefer the personal touch and something a bit more imaginative/artistic than a digital frame. Maybe they will be curled and tatty, I presume m_f has the negatives, but the expression on mummy's face would be worth it.

I think I prefer the personal touch and something a bit more imaginative/artistic than a digital frame. Maybe they will be curled and tatty, I presume m_f has the negatives, but the expression on mummy's face would be worth it.

Apparently they are responsible for wasting a lot of energy cumulatively. Wasting as in something that was never really needed to enable anything - they are just used because they are there.

Depends on your definition of need. There was never any need to take the photos in the first place, so the whole thing is a complete waste of energy.

Apparently they are responsible for wasting a lot of energy cumulatively. Wasting as in something that was never really needed to enable anything - they are just used because they are there.

🙄

Wasting as in something that was never really needed to enable anything

we never needed civilisation or art or language or bikes either. Grunting and hitting things with rocks should be plenty for anyone.

Why, MF?

Are you saying it's ok to piss energy up the wall like it's got no consequences?

SFB - are you seriously trying to tell me that digital photo frames of family snaps are in some way important to civilisation? Half of your posts are nothing more than reductio ad absurdum.

The amount of energy used by DPFs is relatively tiny, in comparison with sayyyy, that extra minute you spend in the shower because it's nice, or driving nearer to the shop when the car park location 1/4 of a mile away could also hold your vehicle.

SFB - are you seriously trying to tell me that digital photo frames of family snaps are in some way important to civilisation? Half of your posts are nothing more than reductio ad absurdum.

No, he never said that.

Are you saying it's ok to piss energy up the wall like it's got no consequences?

The amount of energy used by DPFs is relatively tiny, in comparison with sayyyy, that extra minute you spend in the shower because it's nice, or driving nearer to the shop when the car park location 1/4 of a mile away could also hold your vehicle

Yes, but it's also in ADDITION to those things.

And it all adds up. Are you saying that it doesn't matter how much energy we use?

SFB - are you seriously trying to tell me that digital photo frames of family snaps are in some way important to civilisation? Half of your posts are nothing more than reductio ad absurdum.

no, I'm saying "need" is a vague concept.

And it all adds up. Are you saying that it doesn't matter how much energy we use?

No. Stop putting words into peoples mouths. But what I might say is that how do you know I don't choose to cycle to the shops, rather than drive, and spend my quota of energy on other things? Just because someone chooses different things to you, doesn't mean they're wrong. It's easy to assume it's in addition to those things, but it needn't be.

Incidentally have you compared them to the energy usage of paper printing machines that used to run day in day out in many high-street developing centres etc, only for the photos to then be lost and stuck in a cupboard never to be seen again (wasted)? Added to the paper making process for those images, and the chemicals involved in their one-off creation, and the rolls of film too. I'd be interested to see how it averaged out.

And it all adds up. Are you saying that it doesn't matter how much energy we use?

This whole thing about yeah I can do X because I don't do Y is stupid.

Use as little as you can get away with, and don't make choices that needlessly waste - that's it. I'm not saying become a hermit, and I'm not preaching - my footprint isn't that small - but don't just decide to do stuff that's pointless and you never missed before.

Btw according to John Lewis's website the worst photo frames use up as much as one or two energy saving lights being left on. I bet if someone left two lights on in your house someone'd say 'stop wasting energy' and you'd switch em off.

My computer btw is on for work - and let me re-iterate - I'm not saying become a hermit, just don't WASTE the damn stuff on ridiculous nonsense.

If every household in the UK had two frames, it'd use up about 3-500 MW of electricity, or maybe a third to a half of a power station. What a pointless waste.

But you aren't wasting energy if you are enjoying the photoframe are you? If I left my telly on for 2 hours with no-one in the room that would be a waste. Watching the telly for 2 hours is not a waste*.

And you are still here murdering wildlife...

*Unless it is Eastenders, or I'm a Celebrity or X Factor or....

And you are still here murdering wildlife...

Stupid thing to say. Read my posts.

And a TV is watched for most of the time it's on, it's actually doing something.

A photo frame does the same damn job as a piece of paper, but costs energy to make and use. Change the picture every few weeks if you want a change.

There's no argument to this. Use as little as you can get away with. Simple.

Use as little as you can get away with, and don't make choices that needlessly waste - that's it. I'm not saying become a hermit, and I'm not preaching - my footprint isn't that small - but don't just decide to do stuff that's pointless and you never missed before.

That's your definition of pointless though isn't it, not someone elses. Usually you don't leave photo frames on all the time. I don't NEED to shower in hot water, heating it is a needless frivolity I enjoy.

There's no argument to this. Use as little as you can get away with. Simple.

My DPF uses 2W. My PC uses nearly 200 with the printer and monitor.

CK - what you are saying is equivalent to being on an economy drive and saying 'oh well I saved money on this new bike part because it's on sale, so that means I can spend that amount on something else'. Net saving = £0. Or trying to lose weight, and saying 'oh well I burned up 250 calories in the gym so that means I can eat a mars bar'. Net weight loss = 0.

And a TV is watched for most of the time it's on, it's actually doing something.

A photo frame does the same damn job as a piece of paper, but costs energy to make and use. Change the picture every few weeks if you want a change.

There's no argument to this. Use as little as you can get away with. Simple.

And you are still not using as little energy as you can get away with are you?

CK you are being ridiculous again. Showering in cold water is horrible. Looking at a paper picture instead of a digital one is just fine.

It's how we got into this mess we are in. A little bit here, a bit there.. oh that'll be fine, that'll be okay, it's just a bit - before you know it we're in serious trouble. Oh look - here we are.

And you are still not using as little energy as you can get away with are you?

No, but I try not to waste it - but this is not about me, it's about energy wastage. I am not trying to make out I am better than anyone else, just making a point about energy usage.

CK you are being ridiculous again. Showering in cold water is horrible. Looking at a paper picture instead of a digital one is just fine.

I'm not, I'd happily shower in cold water, often do - I'm fairly warm-blooded. I think you're wasteful using hot water. My net saving will be higher than yours. You are incredibly wasteful with a 10KW shower.

Point being everyones definition of waste is different, the only thing that matters is the overall usage. If my overall usage is lower than yours due to me cycliing to the shops and having a DPF, when you drive and dont have a DPF, you have no room to argue. You cannot dictate what constitutes "waste" to other people.

No, but I try not to waste it - but this is not about me, it's about energy wastage. I am not trying to make out I am better than anyone else, just making a point about energy usage.

I don't have a 10kW shower.

You must admit that for most people showering in cold water is not easy. A lot harder than not buying a digital photo frame.

My showers are less than 3 mins long, 3-4 times a week. But again this is not about me.

How ridiculous would it be for society to plunge headlong into disaster because all anyone did was argue about whose fault it was or wasn't?

So it is okay for you to use energy as you think fit, but not for other people?

Well, I try not to use it unless it's really necessary to get my life working - I'm not doing very well at the moment but I am trying.

Are you?

Are you?

How ridiculous would it be for society to plunge headlong into disaster because all anyone did was argue about whose fault it was or wasn't?

But how rediculous to cut tiny things under the suggestion that anything deemed waste by one person should not be allowed, when larger ones pose a more pressing problem. Showering in cold water was never a problem for humans for the last few millenia, why do we struggle so much now?

Making the assumption that hot showers are a must is the most stark representation that you have no idea of waste.

Did I start this spat? Sorry...

Anyway, to clarify my point - I don't really give a monkeys if you have a digital photoframe, even though I can't see the point. But it does seem that, as a society, we are much better at inventing (and more to the point, marketing to the masses) pointless novelty items, sorry, er, useful devices like this that consume power, than we are at reducing our usage.

Which is fine, whatever. But the net result is, we need more power stations of some form or other, and soon.

as a society, we are much better at inventing (and more to the point, marketing to the masses) pointless novelty items, sorry, er, useful devices like this that consume power, than we are at reducing our usage.

Because reducing usage means, in general, suffering or change. All the supposedly positive things in life use energy, society and humans are geared towards using energy not saving it, as that saves our own effort. It's human nature to find the easiest route, it's biologically programmed into us. It will probably destroy us eventually.

Consider the O2 Joggler. More brainpower than you could ever need, a proper high resolution display, and built in WiFi and ethernet. £49.

I bought my parents one a few Christmases ago. It was one of the Philips ones which, certainly at the time, was the only one that actually produced nice sharp, bright images - there's a lot of cheap rubbish ones about.

I smuggled a big cardboard box of family pics out of their house a few months earlier and went through scanning the best ones. Loaded them all on there and it just picks a new one at random every 30 mins or so.

They loved it - not many of the shots are technically good enough or interesting enough to dedicate a permanent frame to, but they have 20-odd years of memories in a small frame instead. They're great for showing pics to older relatives too (my parents just have a desktop computer upstairs), the Philips ones have a battery so can work away from the mains for a few hours.

Oh, and their one uses 5.6W when it's on - which is only a couple of hours in the evenings. Sod all in the grand scheme of things - I wonder what the "carbon footprint" of uploading them to a photo printing site and getting them back through the post is?

Oh, and their one uses 5.6W when it's on - which is only a couple of hours in the evenings. Sod all in the grand scheme of things

Yes, but if every home has one...

I wonder what the "carbon footprint" of uploading them to a photo printing site and getting them back through the post is?

Fair point.

Making the assumption that hot showers are a must is the most stark representation that you have no idea of waste

Don't insult me. Why should this be a personal debate? My carbon footprint is pretty bad, I know it, but this isn't (or shouldn't be) personal.

Waste is energy usage that you could do without. I waste energy by driving to work instead of getting the train. It'd be hard to get the train but this thread has pricked my conscience to try again to make it work. I also wasted energy by not buying the most fuel efficient car for a 2nd car.

Because reducing usage means, in general, suffering or change. All the supposedly positive things in life use energy, society and humans are geared towards using energy not saving it, as that saves our own effort. It's human nature to find the easiest route, it's biologically programmed into us. It will probably destroy us eventually.

You are absolutely correct. However, this doesn't make it right to waste, does it? Having a digital photo frame on all the time doesn't really do anything significant to our lives - face it, so why take that on board?

If you want to look at photos, just boot up the computer and flick through some pics - or go through the old paper albums. Yes your computer uses up more energy than a dpf, but you aren't going to be doing it for two hours a night every night.

Oh, and their one uses 5.6W when it's on - which is only a couple of hours in the evenings

That's a good start.

Sod all in the grand scheme of things

It's all sod all in the grand scheme of things. And yet - here we are with a problem! It's all little things.

And if we got eink displays then they could be on all the time but only draw significant power when changing the picture, which in my vision would be maybe once a day.

There was a new thing in the paper about electro-wetting displays.. like e-ink but colour.

Sounds good. Ultra low power reflective display is the future for applications like this.

I've got one and think it's ace. It's a thousand pictures all in one place. Lots of people who come round (police, social workers) will spend ages watching and saying what a good photographer I am.

so **** off.

What I fail to understand is why people see them as being pointless because 'we didn't need them a few years ago'. Almost all of us now use digital cameras so the natural progression is to display them digitally - a home hub such as a PS3, on the internet, on a laptop, via an iPod etc. A digital photo frame seems a sensible progression.

In the past, in the days of negs, you pretty much had to get prints done of all the shots on the film (unless you went to a specialist who would usually charge more anyway). This meant the vast majority of people had piles of prints which often ended up in frames.

Digital cameras are a lot better than the paper alternative - and probably more eco friendly. That's a big plus I believe. They are a solution to the problem of seeing your photos instantly and being able to re-take them if the results are not good. And they solve the annoyance of having to send your film away.

Digital photo frames are a solution looking for a problem. I don't think anyone thought 'you know, I wish that picture on the wall could change itself automaticaly'. Rather, someone thought 'I wonder what we could do with all these small LCD screens no-one wants any more now portable tellies are out of fashion' and the result - DPFs.

I don't think anyone thought 'you know, I wish that picture on the wall could change itself automaticaly'.

Not trying to be contrary, but over a decade ago I thought this to myself. It's not a giant leap once digital cameras are invented, in fact it's the very next thought process.

Don't insult me. Why should this be a personal debate? My carbon footprint is pretty bad, I know it, but this isn't (or shouldn't be) personal.

It wasn't an insult, it was an observation. (edit, for addition...) my point was that waste IS a personal thing. You dont need a hot shower. It's not required for life,it's not required even for anything more than comfort during a very short period of your day. So if you look at it that way, you're just as "guilty" as the next person with a DPF who doesn't shower in hot water. The point, overall, being that I agree we should cut down waste, but you don't get to say what's waste and what isn't, as thats a very personal line to draw. All those people having warm showers adds up. And a lot more than all those people with a DPF on a few hours a day (and incidentally I know of no-one who leaves theirs on all day unattended).

If you want to look at photos, just boot up the computer and flick through some pics

Booting the PC up for an hour takes more energy than my DPF on for 4-5 hours a night, all week. How on earth does your suggestion make sense? And who suggested DPFs stay on all the time?!

We should all have stuck with Daguerreotypes - we don't need any of that fancy technology.

my point was that waste IS a personal thing

Only on the borders of the issue. For example, if I left all the lights on in my house because I was too lazy to flip the switch, that'd be a waste - most people would not disagree.

However most people would NOT consider showering in hot water to be wasteful...

I put photo frames in the wasteful category. You could very easily do without, and you would never notice if you didn't have one. Just another bit of tat to spend your money on imo. Sure if you need to drive to work, then that's a different matter, but changing pictures is nothing but a gimmick - be honest.

Just another bit of tat to spend your money on imo. Sure if you need to drive to work, then that's a different matter, but changing pictures is nothing but a gimmick - be honest.

This is true, there's no argument there really.

Nice to have, but another 'unnecessary' thing we clog our lives up with.

Mind you, we don't 'need' photography or pictures at all, to survive.

However most people would NOT consider showering in hot water to be wasteful...

No, but most remote and tribal towns would consider you a nutjob for not considering it a luxury and wasteful. We need to be nearer to their power consumption, not nearer to yours or mine. But the point still stands, regardless of whether you think its a gimmick or not, pretty much everything other than heating your house in the depths of winter is a waste, it's just a case of how far you go with your definition. IF you choose to draw a line somewhere, you can't argue when someone else draws it elsewhere, [b]or draws it at the same place but chooses to save more elsewhere[/b]. As Talkemada says, photographs are not necessary, why bother at all? Making the camera was probably infinitely more wasteful than making the prints.

Mind you, we don't 'need' photography or pictures at all, to survive.

AAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh!
[fingers in ears]Nah nah nah nah nah nah[fingers in ears].

Clearly it was a personal question on my part. I've seen these things on sale and I simply wouldn't know what to do with it. I love photographs and photography, I love the image on paper and a good frame. I don't particularly like looking at images in the digital format.

People buy lots of things, people buy tat, people buy unnecessary things and people waste things. The world isn't perfect.

most remote and tribal towns

Basildon?

Clearly it was a personal question on my part. I've seen these things on sale and I simply wouldn't know what to do with it. I love photographs and photography, I love the image on paper and a good frame. I don't particularly like looking at images in the digital format.

Don't buy one then? The salient points have been raised and discussed above, as per your initial request!