Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 84 total)
  • Digital photoframes……Why?
  • coffeeking
    Free Member

    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.

    mastiles_fanylion
    Free Member

    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.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    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?

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    simonfbarnes
    Free Member

    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.

    coffeeking
    Free Member

    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.

    mastiles_fanylion
    Free Member

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

    And have you added up the culminate effect of all those evil DPFs has on the power consumption of the world? I would be surprised if it amounts to a tiny fraction of a little percentage of a insy-winsy bit of power. If you have such belief in not wasting power unnecessarily then you should switch off your computer now and stop killing polar bears, not be moaning about it on a forum.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    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.

    mastiles_fanylion
    Free Member

    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….

    molgrips
    Free Member

    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.

    coffeeking
    Free Member

    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.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    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.

    mastiles_fanylion
    Free Member

    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.
    You are basing your argument on how YOU think YOU would use a frame. Some people might look at one more than you would. I know for a fact I have stopped and watched the one at my mother-in-law's house several times.

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

    molgrips
    Free Member

    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.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    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.

    coffeeking
    Free Member

    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.

    mastiles_fanylion
    Free Member

    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.

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

    molgrips
    Free Member

    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?

    molgrips
    Free Member

    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?

    mastiles_fanylion
    Free Member

    Are you?

    Well I don't have a digital photo frame if that helps.

    coffeeking
    Free Member

    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.

    porterclough
    Free Member

    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.

    coffeeking
    Free Member

    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.

    Flaperon
    Full Member

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

    simon_g
    Full Member

    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?

    Talkemada
    Free Member

    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.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    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.

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    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.

    molgrips
    Free Member

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

    GrahamS
    Full Member

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

    samuri
    Free Member

    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.

    mastiles_fanylion
    Free Member

    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.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    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.

    coffeeking
    Free Member

    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?!

    mastiles_fanylion
    Free Member

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

    molgrips
    Free Member

    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.

    Talkemada
    Free Member

    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.

    coffeeking
    Free Member

    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, or draws it at the same place but chooses to save more elsewhere. As Talkemada says, photographs are not necessary, why bother at all? Making the camera was probably infinitely more wasteful than making the prints.

    donsimon
    Free Member

    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.

    Talkemada
    Free Member

    most remote and tribal towns

    Basildon?

    coffeeking
    Free Member

    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!

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 84 total)

The topic ‘Digital photoframes……Why?’ is closed to new replies.