The Future of Domestic Photography

  • Risto SarvasEmail author
  • David M. Frohlich
Part of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work book series (CSCW)


We now turn our gaze to the future and make our predictions as to what will influence future domestic photography. Our starting point is that, in the past two decades, the infrastructure of domestic photography has changed from a film-based one into a general-purpose information and communications technology infrastructure. We summarise what we see as the most important changes that have occurred in domestic photography in the last two decades: the sheer number of pictures and cameras; the possibilities for editing photographs; the new ways of sharing, archiving, and storing digital photographs; and – given a brief look here – the changes in the ‘domestic sphere’. After that, we cast our gaze into the future and discuss what we see as the main actors shaping the ‘Digital Path’. In other words, we ask what can be found as key business models, discourses, legal actions, and other actors that should be taken into account when one considers the future of domestic photography. In the final section, we summarise our view of the issues soon to face the ICT infrastructure that forms the environment for photographic technology. These boil down to how to build infrastructural simplicity and endurance.


Personal Photograph Social Networking Service Camera Phone Paper Print Technology Provider 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adams A, Talvala E-V, Park SH, Jacobs DE, Ajdin B, Gelfand N, Dolson J, Vaquero D, Baek J, Tico M, Lensch HPA, Matusik W, Pulli K, Horowitz M, and Levoy M (2010) The Frankencamera: an experimental platform for computational photography. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH 2010, Los Angeles, 2010. ACM, New York, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  2. Anderson P, Tushman M (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change. Adm Sci Q 35(4):604–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batchen G (2004) Forget me not: photography and remembrance. Van Gogh Museum; Princeton Architectural Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  4. Book B (2003) Traveling through cyberspace: tourism and photography in virtual worlds. In: Proceedings of the tourism & photography: still visions – changing lives, Sheffield, 2 May 2003, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  5. Boyd D, Hargittai E (2010) Facebook privacy settings: who cares? First Monday 15(8)Google Scholar
  6. Buse P (2010) Polaroid into digital: technology, cultural form, and the social practices of snapshot photography. Continuum 24(2):215–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chalfen R (1987) Snapshot versions of life. Bowling Green State University Popular Press, Bowling GreenGoogle Scholar
  8. CIPA (2010) What is exif? CIPA. Accessed 2 Sept 2010
  9. CNET News (2007) Cameras: shipments rising, but prices falling. 19 Sept 2007Google Scholar
  10. Creative Commons (2010) Creative commons. Accessed 2 Sept 2010
  11. Davis M, King S, Good N, Sarvas R (2004) From context to content: leveraging context to infer media metadata. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual ACM international conference on multimedia, New York, 1 Oct 2004Google Scholar
  12. Durrant A (2010) Family portrayals: design to support photographic representations of intergenerational relationships in family homes. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, GuildfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Durrant A, Frohlich D, Sellen A, Lyons E (2009) Home curation versus teenage photography: photo displays in the family home. Int J Hum Comput Stud 67(12):1005–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. (2010) World economy, global economy, international economics. Accessed 9 Jan 2010
  15. Edwards WK, Grinter RE (2001) At home with ubiquitous computing: seven challenges. In: Proceedings of the UbiComp 2001, Atlanta, 15 Aug 2001, pp 256–271Google Scholar
  16. European Union (2010) Data protection. European Union. Accessed 16 Sept 2010
  17. Eurostat (2008) Ageing characterizes the demographic perspectives of the European societies, statistic in focus 72/2008. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  18. Fletcher D (2010) How Facebook is redefining privacy. Time MagazineGoogle Scholar
  19. Frohlich D, Fennell J (2007) Sound, paper and memorabilia: resources for a simpler digital photography. Pers Ubiquit Comput 11(2):107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giddens A (1998) The third way: the renewal of social democracy. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Giddens A (2000) The third way and its critics. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Grinter RE, Edwards WK, Newman M, Duchenaut N (2005) The work to make a home network. In: Proceedings of the Ninth European conference on computer-supported cooperative work (ECSCW 2005), Paris, 18–22 Sept 2005, pp 469–488Google Scholar
  23. Harrison B (2002) Photographic visions and narrative inquiry. Narrat Inq 12(1):87–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Helsingin Sanomat (2010) Kuvaamista maauimaloissa halutaan rajoittaa pedofiilien pelossa. 12 July 2010Google Scholar
  25. Hodges S, Williams L, Berry E, Izadi S, Srinivasan J, Butler A, Smyth G, Kapur N, Wood K (2006) SenseCam: a retrospective memory aid. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference of ubiquitous computing (UbiComp 2006), Orange County, 27 July 2006, pp 177–193Google Scholar
  26. Hsu J (2009) The worldwide mobile phone camera module market and Taiwan’s industry, 2009 and beyond. Market Intelligence & Consulting Institute (MIC), TaipeiGoogle Scholar
  27. International Telecommunication Union ITU (1992) T.81: information technology – digital compression and coding of continuous-tone still images – requirements and guidelines. ITU, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  28. Kirk DS, Sellen A, Cao X (2010) Home video communication: mediating ‘closeness’. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, Savannah, 2010. ACM, New York, pp 135–144Google Scholar
  29. Kirkpatrick M (2010) The day has come: Facebook pushes people to go public. ReadWriteWeb. Accessed 1 Sept 2010Google Scholar
  30. Lehmuskallio A (2010) Non-professional camera pictures in a ‘Cam Era’ – empirical studies in non-professional uses of user-created pictorial content. Unpublished WorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Lehtinen V, Näsänen J, Sarvas R (2009) “A little bit foolish and light-headed” – Older adults’ understandings of social networking sites. In: Proceedings of the 23rd BCS conference on Human Computer Interaction, British Computer Society, Cambridge, 2009, pp 45–54Google Scholar
  32. Miniwatts Marketing Group (2010) World internet usage and population statistics. Miniwatts Marketing Group. Accessed 6 Aug 2010
  33. MSCI (2010) MSCI international equity indices. Accessed 2 Sept 2010
  34. Näsänen J, Oulasvirta A, Lehmuskallio A (2009) Mobile media in the social fabric of a kindergarten. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems CHI’09, Boston, 2009. ACM, New York, pp 2167–2176Google Scholar
  35. National Institute of Population and Social Security Research (2006) Population statistics of Japan. National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  36. Neustaedter C, Fedorovskaya E (2009) Capturing and sharing memories in a virtual world. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems, Boston, 2009. ACM, New york, pp 1161–1170Google Scholar
  37. Norman D (2009) Designing the infrastructure. Interactions 16(4):66–69CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. PMA (2009a) U.S. households make photo books for family keepsakes. PMA. Accessed 2 Sept 2010
  39. PMA (2009b) Printing behavior of U.S. consumers. PMA. Accessed 2 Sept 2010
  40. PMA (2009c) Percentage of U.S. households receiving digital images from family and friends down from previous years. PMA. Accessed 2 Sept 2010
  41. Raento M, Oulasvirta A, Petit R, Toivonen H (2005) ContextPhone: a prototyping platform for context-aware mobile applications. IEEE Pervasive Comput 4(2):51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Riddle W (2010) Social networking experiences a great migration of maturity in Switched. Accessed 2 Sept 2010Google Scholar
  43. Rose G (2003) Family photographs and domestic spacings: a case study. Trans Inst Br Geogr 28(1):5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sanghvi R (2009) New tools to control your eExperience. The Facebook Blog. Accessed 1 Sept 2010Google Scholar
  45. Sarvas R, Herrarte E, Wilhelm A, Davis M (2004) Metadata creation system for mobile images. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on mobile systems, applications, and services, Boston, 2004. ACM, New York, pp 36–48Google Scholar
  46. Sarvas R, Oulasvirta A, Jacucci G (2005) Building social discourse around mobile photos: a systemic perspective. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on human computer interaction with mobile devices and services, MobileHCI ’05, Salzburg, 1 Sept 2005. ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Schiano D, Chen CP, Isaacs E (2002) How teens take, view, share, and store photos. In: Proceedings of the computer supported cooperative work (CSCW 2002), New Orleans, 2002Google Scholar
  48. Shove E, Watson M, Hand M, Ingram J (2007) The design of everyday life. Berg, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Silicon Alley Insider (2010) WARNING: Google Buzz has a huge privacy flaw. Accessed 19 Mar 2010
  50. Star SL (1999) The ethnography of infrastructure. Am Behav Sci 43(3):377–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. TechCrunch (2010) Watch out who you reply to on Google Buzz, you might be exposing their email address. Accessed 19 Mar 2010
  52. The Economist (2010a) Selling becomes sociable. 9 Sept 2010Google Scholar
  53. The Economist (2010b) The clash of data civilisations. 17 June 2010Google Scholar
  54. The Guardian (2010a) Google Wi-Fi data capture cleared by information commissioner. 29 July 2010Google Scholar
  55. The Guardian (2010b) Privacy no longer a social norm, says Facebook founder. 11 Jan 2010Google Scholar
  56. The Guardian (2010c) Facebook reveals new privacy controls following intense criticism from users. 26 May 2010Google Scholar
  57. The Guardian (2010d) Shareholder trading values Facebook at more than $33bn. 25 Aug 2010Google Scholar
  58. The Guardian (2010e) Apple’s iPad war on Adobe and Flash. 18 Apr 2010Google Scholar
  59. The Guardian (2010f) Internet pirates find ‘bulletproof’ havens for illegal file sharing. 5 Jan 2010Google Scholar
  60. The New York Times (2010) For photographers, the image of a shrinking path. 29 Mar 2010Google Scholar
  61. The Wall Street Journal (2010) Google and the search for the future. 14 Aug 2010Google Scholar
  62. United Nations (2000) Charting the progress of populations. United Nations Population Division, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. US Census Bureau (2010) U.S. and world population clocks. U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed 16 Sept 2010
  64. Van Dijck J (2008) Digital photography: communication, identity, memory. Vis Commun 7(1):57–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Van House N (2007) Flickr and public image-sharing: distant closeness and photo exhibition. In: Extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’07), San JoseGoogle Scholar
  66. Whittaker S, Bergman O, Clough P (2010) Easy on that trigger dad: a study of long term family photo retrieval. Pers Ubiquit Comput 14(1):31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zuckerberg M (2010) Making control simple. In: The Facebook Blog. Accessed 1 Sept 2010Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer London 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Helsinki Institute for Information Technology HIITAalto UniversityHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Digital World Research CentreUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK

Personalised recommendations