[iamsohungry]

> They would like to have the photo in addition to the experience

You don't get to have both. You have to take time out of the experience to take a picture of it.

> typically so that they can remember it.

This reason makes sense if the person has some form of alzheimer's, sure.

If you want something to remind you of it: have T-shirts I bought at every concert I've ever been to, which have the benefit of supporting the band and not taking time from the show and the experiences of the people behind me. They're also something I'll actually look at on a regular basis, because there are few enough of them that I can realistically look through them all, and most of them are still in good enough condition that I wear them occasionally. I've recently switched to buying records at the concerts instead, which has an even more direct connection to the experience.

> spending five minutes snapping a few photos at a two hour concert is not going to "ruin" anything.

Except those five minutes.

[Dylan16807]

Oh, you're saying people place a higher value on photos than the 1% of the experience they trade to make them? Yeah, that makes total sense. They still have the other 99%. I don't see why you would call that absurd.

[iamsohungry]

Because when 100 people in front of you do it for 1% of the experience, it's 100% of your experience.

[Dylan16807]

Only a couple people should be directly in front of you enough to cause a problem.

[brandonmenc]

How is buying a shirt or a record that thousands of other people own a "more direct connection" than a photo from my point of view or actually of me at the event?

It's not. You're just arguing to argue.

Unless you mean that it more directly supports the band, to which I say, why don't you just throw dollar bills onstage.

> This reason makes sense if the person has some form of alzheimer's, sure.

"Hey, I would've taken photos of my wedding, but I don't expect to get the Alzheimer's, so screw it."

Whatever.