Could someone explain why we have digital photoframes? I've seen a couple of threads recently asking about them for presents, nothing wrong with that, I simply don't understand them. If I want a picture, I prefer a good quality print. I prefer having 100 prints scattered around the house.
Do people sit and watch the pictures like a slideshow?
I can't see any benefit in having 100s of pictures flashing past me on a screen. Is it simply a question of quantity over quality?
I could never tire of looking at a single high quality image. Convince me they are good.
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">
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?
Exactly the same here, ma wants me to scan all her favourite old pics and put them on a digital frame
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!"
More to do with the subject matter than the medium, no?2) when you get them out to show someone and bore them to death with the whole album.
Sounds interesting.and they had pics displayed in large backlit frames, about 30x20
😥with a slideshow constantly running.
But do you sit and look at it for any length of time, or does it run in the background not really being noticed? You know, like all those prints sitting in a drawer!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.
OK, fair enough, and just not my cup of tea! 😀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.
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)
[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.
Yep I have the originals and it takes no time to get more prints - it certainly gets lots of nice comments and sure it won't last but it did have the desired effect on mother's day - it came all boxed up in a nice box from Paperchase too 🙂 (And [s]I[/s] the girls really enjoyed doing it too 🙂 )
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.
I can't believe what I am reading. Okay, so I can, this is STW after all.
🙄
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?
For the amount of energy they use? Yes.
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.
