Facebook Photos Suck

Hey, my last post was all warm and fuzzy, so it’s time to return to something mean spirited.  Facebook photos really do suck.  I realize that I can control what content I see or do not see, but some things have a way of sneaking through.  Like this cell phone picture of a guy I have not seen since high school (30 years) with his shirt off at some random backyard party.  Thanks for “status update” Larry.  Or my 5 times removed ex-girlfriend’s poodle.  “Lisa, did we really go out?”

I guess I just hate boring and totally random photos clogging up my pristine pages.  My own brother God love him, posted a photo of his fancy new pool and yard, but it was of such poor quality (like 3 dpi) that it looked like a dry lake in a motel parking lot

Yes, at this rate I will have no facebook friends left, even my family will abandon me.  Maybe it’s cell phones I detest, or maybe I don’t see the need to chronicle every image and then share it with the planet.  “here I am eating pizza, yummy.”  Thanks Fred, see you in the next life.  Call me a jerk, but I think every photo no matter how insignificant says something about the person who took it, and the person or places captured.  If you take my picture make me look good, ’cause that’s how I’d like to remembered.  And if you feel the need to photograph a (mundane) moment then think about whether or not the rest of us need to see it.  At least make the effort to hold your phone steady so that margarita is in focus.

with love,

dh

Advertisements
Tagged ,

12 thoughts on “Facebook Photos Suck

  1. aswirly says:

    ..and this is why I’m not on Facebook. lol. You crack me up! lol

    • Rubin110 says:

      Ditto. This post partially encompasses my hate for general social networking sites. Thank you.

      • Joachimp says:

        I think we can all agree that social networking + photos tends to lean towards quantity over quality… It is this exact reason that I’m not a fan of flickr’s (yahoo’s?) nasty new little feature of _adding people to photos_

      • photoworks says:

        agreed, I think I might edit the post and add your take on the new flickr people feature. Poor flickr is having the Yahoo crap rammed down their throats.

  2. Reminds me of my grandfather’s painfully dull, after dinner slide shows, except on an exponentially greater scale. Now, not only your immediate family must be bored to death by the minutiae of your travel and acquaintances, but everyone you know. Immediately. It is strange.

    Personally, I go back and forth about what photos to upload to my flickr stream. Just the good ones? Or all of them, and then show some of the process that goes into picking the ones that hit the blog?

    • photoworks says:

      I’d say with flickr it’s okay to put up what you want, especially as it can be a learning process and feedback can help./ Having said that, I’m pretty particular about what I upload. Have you seen the awful new people app on flickr. A sad attempt by yahoo to integrate social networking.

  3. fortlordord says:

    Yet another brilliant post. Love them.

  4. I haven’t seen the contact tagging show up yet among my “contacts” on flickr. I assume it was just feature catch up deemed necessary by the flickr/yahoo powers that be. Probably a “Quick Win” for a programming team struggling to maintain their relevance, with higher ups calling for cutbacks. In the tech industry, sadly, these sorts of “deliverables” often get higher priority than real, and not so noticeable, improvements.

  5. cf says:

    I think you have to consider it in context. Facebook is a social tool focused on sharing what you’re doing with friends (good, bad, or ugly drunk.) It’s not focused on art. I get much more upset when there’s crap on flickr from the people who believe everyone wants to see their kids or dogs.

    Also, from a technical perspective, Facebook compresses the hell out of images. They take in something like 220 million new photos a week, and then they store them in an awfully inefficient way (they store 4 copies at different sizes, rather than resizing on serve,) so they make every image look like crap. (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=76191543919)

    • photoworks says:

      I agree with your point about flickr, and certainly facebook makes no claims at being a photography site! Thanks for the feedback.

      dh

    • Josh says:

      “I get much more upset when there’s crap on flickr from the people who believe everyone wants to see their kids or dogs.”

      Odd you feel that way, as flickr isn’t (as opposed to how some people act) some sort of portfolio or high art site. Why shouldn’t I be able to post as many pics of my kid (or cat) as I want? I shouldn’t have to feel so selective as far as the content or how I use my account. That’s what it’s for. ESPECIALLY if I’m paying for a “pro” account. In my opinion, folks that are so concerned and selective about their flickr page like it’s their portfolio to showcase their work should have their own personal dedicated site that no one could go to.

      • photoworks says:

        I’m more or less in agreement with you. I just don’t lie to see so many “disposable” images populating the universe. It’s your account and you can use it as you please, though I doubt it’s your nature to shoot, let alone share a bunch of crap. It is amazing to me how the flickr “photographer” wants to jam ever little thing down your throat which I agree is worse than most of what I see on FB.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: