Re:The fate of antiques and heirlooms in a disposable age
by brudgers on Tuesday August 25, 2020 @05:36PM
(#24276441)
Prints are push rememberance. Google’s pull model costs that. Indeed that’s pretty much true of digital artifacts. They don’t have presence. They can’t come unbidden. A bored dinner guest won’t strike up a conversation. A child cannot ask about it because the it isn’t there. It’s barely even an it.
Re:The fate of antiques and heirlooms in a disposable age
by frosted-flakes on Tuesday August 25, 2020 @05:52PM
(#24276604)
It's probably just me, but I've never found Google Photo's search functionality to be very useful, and can usually find a particular photo in less than ten seconds manually. This is because I have a really good sense of when something happened, so I can usually scroll to the year and month and it's right there.
Also, I ruthlessly prune my photo collection, because once I clear out all the cruft that I don't care about (photos that are blurry, near duplicate, no longer relevant, etc), I have half as many photos to look through. I only keep 500-1000 photos per year, one folder per year, as well as a synced Camera Roll folder with not-yet-processed photos.
Not only does this make browsing through my photo collection a much more enjoyable experience, it doesn't take up much space. I have my entire photo collection (11000 photos from the last 12 years) stored locally on my phone in full resolution, as well as backed up in various other locations.
But the amazingness of Google's Photo service is the search.
My wife and I reminisce and say something like "remember that time we went to a Yankees/Red Sox baseball game - so much fun". I search for "Yankees baseball", and boom, there's the photo of my wife, at the stadium, from 2012.
I can't replicate that functionality.