canonet Offline Image Upload: Off
|
p.1 #12 · If no digital technology existed....... | |
Cicopo wrote:
I took my photography course in 82 and had a full colour darkroom a few years later and yes I'd still enjoy photography had digital not come along, but it's much easier now, but also more expensive all things considered. The downside these days is that everyone can buy a digital camera without learning anything about photography but they still think they are "photographers". At my stepdaughter's recent wedding the pro had to lay down the law because just about every guest rushed in to shoot each scene he tried to set up which obviously was a very distracting situation. Back in the film days this wasn't an issue because so few people had cameras, and those who did were frugal with their shooting.
I took my first photography course in middle school in 1979 after reading/learning about it with a Polaroid Zip and various 126 and 110 cameras for 5-6 yrs previously. Also, reading The NY Daily News and looking at the pictures within and thinking I could do that!
Shooting Kodachrome with a 110 in the '70s was interesting and still looks good today!
I shot a wedding were, I counted, about 16 people popped up with various digital devices ( phones, cameras, SC card vido cameras, etc) and really disrupted the wedding. Laying the law down the law did not help as some told ME I was in THEIR way.........and I was hired. Sakes! The minister finally broke that up. At my cousin's wedding in 1999, I did not see anything like this at all. I shot alongside the pro, after asking of course, but not the brash move folks do today.
I think folks had the SLRs in the 80s and even 90s but fewer were there and, related to what folks earned, were more expensive.
I walked around with a Canonet17 and a Olympus stylus Epic 35 in the 90s and returned great results and keeping in mind there were up to 38-39 frames ( in the Canonet if you knew how to do it) in the camera.
|