I have talked about this with others who got into photography because digital made it easier. These folks would have shuddered on learning about different kinds of film, how to print, manual focusing and other 'fun' things about photography from the past.
Some of the colleges still teach film FIRST before going to digital and I like that as it teaches people NOT to be dependant on the motordrive to get everything.
First, in answer to your question, I would definitely not be doing photography if it were not for digital. I did film as a traveler and a parent, but it was mainly snap shot shooting. I enjoy the marriage of computer and camera in the post processing stages, and have worked pretty hard to develop what skills I have. I'd never, ever be inclined to set up a dark room for the same sort of thing.
Re: texting; You might want to consider what it represents. It's actually a polite way of getting information to you. Unlike the phone, it doesn't demand that you stop whatever you are doing. Your friends' messages will be there when it's convenient for you. You don't need a pen to write anything down, like an arrival time or a new contact number that's been texted to you. And you always have the option of returning a message that came over text by calling. You get the best of all possible worlds.
True, it's a little awkward at first because of having to punch through the keys several times to get the letters you want. But that inconvenience disappears with a little practice. Plus knowing where the punctuation is! That was the turning point (pun intended) for me. Commas, periods, question and exclamation marks are all stashed under the number 1. Another key gives you spaces and third capitalizes.
Once you have that down, you'll be off. You can start communicating unobtrusively with your friends, too.
Now all I have to do is learn how to take photos with my phone. :P
i'm not going to start on texting as i feel folks can call me to say something! Call me an old foagie but I prefer that!
As for film, I'd somehow try to stay in Black & white, print it myself as much as possible, but many folks would want to see color but would be victim to how the color printer sees the negative.
I would indeed be a photographer today - I was really into it during the film era, and before things got hugely automated. Then the 'fun' went out when the only cameras I could afford were all automated. Having affordable digital equipment available has renewed my enthusiasm. I love the IQ we get now, and I am actually enjoying the (huge) learning curve.
BTW - as was mentioned above, texting is easy & a great convenience once you get into the hang of it. If you don't like clicking several times to get to the character you want, Blackberry & some other models have teeny little keyboards that are arranged just like typewriter keyboards.
Email/texting and voice mail/telephoning put different burdens on the parties to the communication.
Texting is really easy for the recipient, it's not real time, you can see the entire message at a glance, usually, you can make printed records, etc. The sender on the other hand has to punch through key strokes or cope with a tiny keyboard The burden is on the sender.
Voice mail works the other way, it's easy to send, but more difficult to receive. The burden is on the receiver.
I love getting text messages, and I often reply by voice.
Oh, and to answer the OPs question, yes. I was a photographer 40 years ago, and would be still regardless of technology. But don't get me wrong, I love digital.
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.
As for texting I'm not likely going to learn how since I don't even own a cell phone, nor am I in the market for one.
Today's digital cameras make photography fun, you can shoot and shoot and get what you want without having to pay an arm and leg to get your pictures later. Film is no fun, I wasted ton's of money learning and with today's cameras you have to try to get a lousy pictures. Just look around, people carry their p&s cameras like their Am. Ex. cards. You won't see this before 2002.
Yep, and being able to take a zillion photos without worring about developing really did help my learning curve. So I've got the tech part down and have for some years now...but the real hard part, actually "making" interesting and artful photos...well, I still don't know how to do that.
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. ...Show more →
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.
MSC wrote:
Yep, and being able to take a zillion photos without worring about developing really did help my learning curve. So I've got the tech part down and have for some years now...but the real hard part, actually "making" interesting and artful photos...well, I still don't know how to do that.
i saw your website and you do have some interestng /artful photos where you thought about composition.
carlsbadbum wrote:
Today's digital cameras make photography fun, you can shoot and shoot and get what you want without having to pay an arm and leg to get your pictures later. Film is no fun, I wasted ton's of money learning and with today's cameras you have to try to get a lousy pictures. Just look around, people carry their p&s cameras like their Am. Ex. cards. You won't see this before 2002.
I think it was fuin in the 1970s and 80s when you dropped it off at the fotomat or drug store. Come back a week later, anticipation building up, and you'd have pictures.
Negatives will last for years but no one know how digital will hold up in long term storage.
