Help me figure out this odd encounter w/woman & baby.

[purplehearingaid]

I wanted a photo of my baby and myself so I stood in front of a big mirror I had and put my baby on the couch and took a photo of the 2 of us and it came out pretty good ! I guess as long as there was reports of a baby being kidnaped on the news that night everything is cool with the mom and baby. . I hope she wasn’t trying to steal some personal info from you.

[nearwildheaven]

@Bonaventure

No one took selfies in the pre-digital camera era because they always came out blurry. Maybe someone can corroborate, but I believe the focal length on those 35mm standard cameras was too long for a normal person to be able to hold at a sufficient distance away from their body and still be in focus.

I took many selfies and every last one of them was an out-of-focus waste of expensive film and developing.

I took a selfie with my Polaroid when I needed a picture of myself for a college class, and my roommate was out. It came out OK, as Polaroids go. My brother also took a selfie at day camp when he was about 10 years old; IIRC, it was the same roll on which he took a picture of the toilet - something our parents didn’t find as amusing as we did.

[Yllaria]

@jsgoddess

. . . The next day, I saw a different young woman carrying a baby. She had a sign, very similar to the first woman’s sign. Her baby was also sound asleep.

Then I realized it was the same baby. . . .

You know, it only takes a little whiskey in the bottle to make one pop right off.

[SpyOne]

@usedtobe

Did you ever see people taking ‘selfies’ before the cell phone grew cameras?

No, but only because camera viewfinders were designed for the picture-taker to be behind the camera. There was simply no way to tell from the front of the camera if you had gotten it aimed right, if you were properly in frame, and/or if the right landmarks were visible in the background.

Hence folks routinely asked nearby friends or strangers, “Could you take a picture of (me/us)?” Possibly adding “With the (landmark) in the background?”

While I do hate the phenomenon of … inserting yourself into the scene you intended to capture. Like the woman who was being evacuated from a recently crash-landed plane. I totally understand the urge to film that. I totally don’t understand the urge to point the camera at your own face.

But if what you want is a picture of yourself, there is absolute nothing wrong with taking such a picture. And since you are capable of taking it yourself, why not?

[SpyOne]

@eclectic_wench

This is the first thing that came to mind for me as well. I have a shot of my two kids that’s a near-exact replica of a shot of me and my brother when we were little, and yeah, I made sure it was at exactly the same distance and angle.

I also have very few pics of me with my kids, because I’m always the one taking the photos.

My family has a similar story:
The original photo was taken roughly 1960 : on the sofa in my aunt’s living room sat my great-grandfather, his oldest son (my grandfather), HIS oldest son (my father), and his oldest son (my brother, an infant).
The second photo was taken about 25 years later. Same living room, same sofa, this time the far left was my grandfather, then my father, then my brother, then his infant son.
My father did live long enough to become a great-grandfather, but not long enough to see his oldest grandson become a father, so those two photos of 4 generations are the end of the pattern.

[nearwildheaven]

@SpyOne

Like the woman who was being evacuated from a recently crash-landed plane. I totally understand the urge to film that. I totally don’t understand the urge to point the camera at your own face.

But if what you want is a picture of yourself, there is absolute nothing wrong with taking such a picture. And since you are capable of taking it yourself, why not?

She may have wanted everyone to know she was OK.