Hacker News Reader

Comment by marapuru | Hacker News Reader

This quote from the article baffles me:

> The good instagrammers try to show different ways of enjoying nature. We don't tag places that are off the beaten path that we want to protect as long as possible. Some places have become "insta-famous" without ever mentioning where they are but eventually they become known to everyone.

Wait, what? So you take a picture. Put it on instagram (because you are an 'instagrammer'), but you don't mention the place. But since you are an instagrammer, people want to figure it out and now flood the country in search for that place. Trampling all the nature on their way...

I get the idea of taking a photo once in a while. Mind you, I really enjoy photography. But I found that a photo never does justice to the moment. So I choose to savour the moment before anything else.

Let's hope the future learns people that most of these instagram shots are basically digital waste.

View on HN

https://xkcd.com/1314/

I'd stay on the topic at hand. Most people are nobodies at instagram and they just want to share with their friends. I do not have instagram nor post pictures elsewhere, but I also don't feel entitled to tell others how to live their life. The real problem here is breaking the law (e.g driving off-road), influencer or not, tourist or not.

Hot tip: enjoy the moment, then find a similar scene on google images and share that if you need to. No one ever knows or cares the difference.

On the contrary, my circles would probably reverse image search it and then call me a fraud. My circles probably wouldn't care if I went to Iceland, though.

Do you really want to be part of such circles then? Especially if you clearly state that it's an illustration, not a picture report made by yourself.

For a long time I've shared the same view that all the good pictures have been photographed, but with all this commercialization of the information it becomes nontrivial to find a good free hi-res image even of relatively known places without watermarks and outside of walled gardens.

This, how many photos of the same scene are required ? 1

Is it more or less digital waste than hacker news comments?

When an instagrammer dies, where go all the likes and the pictures?

At least, with paper-printed photos, you have|had material stuff to inherit with some context and history.

> When an instagrammer dies, where go all the likes and the pictures?

The Internet Archive, of course.

You are aware that posting a picture on Instagram doesn't preclude you also archiving it, yes?

Ah the irony. :p

You get buried with copies saved to glass discs in 5D!

> Let's hope the future learns people that most of these instagram shots are basically digital waste.

That's very condescending of you. Lots of people like having real visual memories of places they've been.

I like having visual memories too. But are my memories triggered by a self-made almost identical photo of a specific glacier or tree at a touristic attraction?

In the last couple of years I've not taken photographs of things from which I was sure already tens of thousands of photos exist.

In my opinion people forget the importance of the experience itself. It seems as if there must always be some form of evidence to show others that you've been to some place. Preferably while you are still there.

I just returned from a short vacation with my kids and I took a bunch of photos. Every one has somebody from my family in it, often doing something goofy. Yesterday, while waiting at the dentist office I was flipping through them and it was wonderful.

The memory trigger wouldn't be as strong with a stock photo.

In my experience, my own picture does trigger a different response than a basically identical photo from somebody else. I have a wall dedicated to pictures of my various hiking trips, and replacing them with professional photos doesn't have the same effect. I've tried.

I also don't think taking a picture and being present in the moment are mutually exclusive at all. It takes five seconds for me to snap a quick photo. It's really not that big of a deal.

What if I told you that taking a picture is itself an experience? Especially if you're a little bit careful about composition; you have to move around and determine how best to position the camera, what time of day to get the light you want, which glass configured in what way, etc.

Some of my clearest memories of places I've been are of places I took photos, for exactly this reason.

This is silly and pure conjecture. That's my opinion. I love taking photos and I love seeing my friends photos of the things they experience. Not some photo from the tens of thousands of photos that exist. People can do two things at once. Take a photo and enjoy the experience.

As already linked: https://xkcd.com/1314/

This is a good point. I often forget I've even been to a place until I look at a map of picture locations, then zoom in and remember that time. I'm not sure I'd put much stock in photos of a place leading to its destruction until there is real evidence. My friend telling me about his visit to Scotland did a lot more to make me want to visit than his pictures.

There was a paper a little while back saying that if you took a photo of something you remember it less well. This was troubling to me as the designated photographer in my family, but not particularly surprising. Definitely made me consider sometimes to leave the camera in the backpack and just soak in the moment.

definitely this. When looking for a good photo, you look basically with one eye and with a set frame, deliberately turning off the 3D immersive experience. I've learned this trick after countless very bad images of very beautiful things, but it's equally important to be able to turn off this mode and enjoy the full experience.

Which is irrelevant, as they can have them without posting them, as it's something for others to marvel to.

> But I found that a photo never does justice to the moment.

Pics or it didn't happen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com