A Digital Picture Frame Without the Lock-In?

The Cisco Kid asks: "My mom, bless her soul, doesn't quite get the concept of digital photography. She always complains that we never print them out for her, and gets completely flustered at the idea of looking at them on a computer. I'm thinking of getting a digital photo frame for her, only I can't seem to find one that fits the bill. I am aware of the possibility of building one, and may end up going that way (most likely using a laptop), but I'm really hoping I can find a consumer one that meets my needs — and that's where things get tricky." One of the major features that is required is the ability to update the frame over the network, without the need of any third party software. Has anyone seen a digital picture frame that doesn't tie you to a piece of proprietary software or a proprietary network? "I'd like to be able to hang it on the wall, and leave it there, so I want to be able to update/add pictures to it over either a wireless or wired network. I've found very few that have networking capabilities, but I can't seem to find any documentation as to what application-layer protocol they use. For example, I've found one that only connects to the manufacturer's website, to which you must subscribe — there is no option to use the network, directly. Kodak seems to only support using their proprietary Windows-only software for controlling or updating their frames (and I don't use Windows).

Is anyone aware of anyone that makes a reasonably priced digital frame that has networking and uses open protocols? Or should I expect to be taking apart the display hinge of a used laptop in the near future?"

Comments

Use a DVD Player

[maxwells_deamon]

We gave my mother in law a portable DVD player.

The one we bought takes CDs with pictures on them and also takes SD cards

It will run them as a slide show, I assume that will work

You have to be a little carefull how you format things and send the photos to her but it does work and requires no subscription.

Dunno about network-attached, but....

[g1zmo]

I bought one (Coby, I think) for my own mother last year, and it uses a CF card for storage. You just put all of your pictures on the card and stick it in the back of the frame and it automatically displays them slideshow-style. It has a little remote control you use to configure various settings like slideshow speed, or to just display a certain image or whatever. It has a 7" screen and cost about $70. I just wish it had batteries so there isn't an ugly power cord hanging down the wall or over the edge of the desk.

Battery life

[dgatwood]

The biggest problem for these things---and particularly for digital picture frames with wireless networking---is battery life. Unless you're planning to hook up a power cord wherever you hang it, that's going to be a real pain; backlights take a lot of power. Also, it will never be like looking at a photo because it is a rear-lit display.

What you really want is electronic paper. The technology is in its infancy (despite being decades in the making), but it has real potential to be used for all sorts of things---digital music stands, digital picture frames, digital billboards on the highway without obnoxious lights, etc. Its biggest advantage is that it takes no power except when you are changing it, making it absolutely ideal for what you're doing. Combine that with power-over-ethernet (which would be plausible for such a low power device), and you have a really cool toy. :-)

Re:Just get prints

[DerekLyons]

That's exactly what I was thinking - if the author's mom wants prints, why not give them to her? Why force a gadget on her (which can break, batteries can run down, etc... etc...) that she doesn't want? Not to mention that prints have not only have no lock-in, she can pick here own frames, mattes, etc... to match her decor and tastes.
 
My mom (who gets both digital photography and computers) owned, briefly, a digital frame - and then trashed it after about a year. She has photos, old and new, all around the house - there was no way a single digital frame could replace all those, and the cost of well over a hundred digital frames (not to mention the maintenance) was simply out of the question. Nor is a slide show always a viable option.
 
When we were visiting in March, Mom had just finished a wonderful 'diorama'. On an end table were pictures of her dad (who died in 1987), pictures of her and her siblings growing up that featured them and Grandpa, and pictures of us kids with Grandpa. It was lit with his reading lamp - and the centerpiece was his Bible, opened to his favorite passage and with his reading glasses laid on top. A slide show wouldn't have near the impact as that little grouping of carefully selected frames and photographs. While we were visiting them, she was happily redoing her 'family' wall - a careful grouping of photographs of us kids[1] and her grandkids. (She needs to make room for pictures of the new grandbaby due in June.) I spent a wonderful afternoon helping her and reminiscing about when and where some of the photographs were taken. She doesn't want a slide show there - that would leave an empty wall. She just wants to have her photographs arranged and sized as she wants them. (And if the size or cropping doesn't suit her, Dad has a Mac, a high end scanner, several graphics and photoediting programs, and a high end printer - and Mom knows how to use 'em all.)

There's a time and place for geek cool - and a time and place for more traditional methods. The choice should be left to [the author's] Mom, not forced on her.

[1] Including one picture she just loves, which is also then one picture of me worse than any driver's license photo ever taken - my boot camp portrait. (Taken in the second week of boot camp when I was still shell shocked and waaay short on sleep.) If I could wave a magic wand and make just one picture of me disappear from human memory - that would be the one.

Is it you who doesn't get the 'concept', perhaps?

[caitsith01]

My mom, bless her soul, doesn't quite get the concept of digital photography. She always complains that we never print them out for her, and gets completely flustered at the idea of looking at them on a computer.

I must say, I take exception to this opening. The 'concept' of digital photography is hardly that one must no longer print pictures. In fact, digital prints are fantastic quality and a very satisfying (and, relatively speaking, permanent) way to keep your pictures.

I would say that digital photography's key feature is the replacement of film with a reusable medium, and the corresponding ability to easily transfer and manipulate the pictures stored on that medium. Nothing in that description means that those pictures should not be printed.

Am I alone in finding electronic storage and display of pictures spectacularly unsatisfying? Not only do pictures look worse on a screen to my eye, the non-physical nature of the pictures also diminishes their permanence and impact. Furthermore, storing images on a computer encourages the habit of retaining hundreds or thousands of poor photographs (as there is effectively no cost for doing so) and thereby reduces the amount of time spent considering each photograph in detail and deciding which ones are worth looking at and enjoying.