2005-08-22 : Snap snap
OK, firstly a correction – the band we saw the other night that bored me to tears wasn’t Queens of Noize at all; they were some DJs who were on after that band. The band we saw was called Kill City. Not that it makes one hell of a difference, cos I still thought they were rubbish. Interestingly enough, when I was Googling to try to find if that was the actual band, I stumbled across someone’s page talking about Kill City, and their opening line was “If you believe all you read then you’d probably never bother going to see Kill City, that would be a shame.” – can’t help but think that statement is a little under-powered in a promotional sense.
ANYWAY, the thing I wanted to come on & talk about was camera phones. They’ve always been an uneasy match with me, because I think the idea of having a poor quality camera which provides similar performance to the digital cameras of 6-10 years ago is a bit of a regression. However I’m mildy interested in the idea that you can grab spur-of-the-moment shots when you didn’t happen to bring your real camera. But again, due to the quality of the cameras in phones, it’s often not worth bothering. Lets face it – you probably wouldn’t be bothered with buying a good quality digital camera that made scratchy crappy crackly phone calls, so why is the reverse at all true ?
Of course, without a camera phone I’d have never have gotten a picture of this BT van that had been wheelclamped.
Or this useful historical treatise on tractors.
Or this photo of the “counter board” in the foyer of the theatre where Dan & I saw The Mousetrap on my birthday.
And Em wouldn’t have snapped this picture of Lord Science asleep at his desk.
So I suppose they’re slightly useful in that regard.