You know you are getting old when:

[Bushman]

All of my family are avid photographers. Heck, we still find the occasional undeveloped roll lying about, or a pack of prints in an old drawer we'd forgotten had been put there. We haven't used a film camera in close to 15 years now. The first chance we had to go digital, we did and we've never looked back. Our first digital camera took floppy disks! Last year, I had to buy a floppy disk reader just to access the old images I had taken. Sure there's a charm to film. I still love film myself, but there's a lot of advantages to digital that make it my go-to. For one, ample space. I don't have to worry about wasting the film and I can snap away, delete, and snap some more all to my heart's content.

 

[2jakes]

For an amateur "point and click" photographer like me, arguably the best advantage of digital cameras is being able to instantly review the results of your attempts to determine whether or not you've captured the moment the way you wanted to. A close second would be the ability to snap that shot multiple times, choose the "best" one, and delete the rest without the wasted expense of having the "bad" shots developed along with the "good".

You hit it right on the nail about the expense & frustration
of developing the “Good along with the Bad & the Ugly”
at the foto lab.
I love my new tech Nikon except how I feel when I have
to set it to take a decent photo...

Good part is I can delete & delete & delete, until I get it right.

 

[Trenchfriend]

You know...

When you're born in 1984, but still know the old measuring unit "Atü" ("air pressure/atmospheric pressure").

 

[2jakes]

You know...

When you're born in 1984, but still know the old measuring unit "Atü" ("air pressure/atmospheric pressure").

When you were born, my biggest concern...

 

[Trenchfriend]

@2jakes
On mid life-crisis, I wouldn't have add the smiley.

 

[2jakes]

@2jakes
On mid life-crisis, I wouldn't have add the smiley.

 

[MisterCairo]

For an amateur "point and click" photographer like me, arguably the best advantage of digital cameras is being able to instantly review the results of your attempts to determine whether or not you've captured the moment the way you wanted to. A close second would be the ability to snap that shot multiple times, choose the "best" one, and delete the rest without the wasted expense of having the "bad" shots developed along with the "good".

I appreciate the like, but must admit that digital allows the lazy to excel. A monkey given a digital camera will take the occasional good picture.

Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.

Fire away...

 

[Zombie_61]

I appreciate the like, but must admit that digital allows the lazy to excel. A monkey given a digital camera will take the occasional good picture...

That's probably why I like them.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I have decidedly mixed feelings about traditional photography vs. digital imaging, which I consider two distinct and similar - but different - disciplines.

As many here may recall, I grew up working in my parents commercial photo biz in the 60s/70s. Old school photography was central to my life: I developed b/w film and made prints every day after school for years. And I ended up with tons of photo equipment, some of which I still use. I have three vintage cameras loaded with b/w film right now.

And I also shoot with digital point & shoot cameras and my smartphone. This is how I've come to feel about it:

Digital imaging has perfected point & shoot technology to the point that users don't have to know any technique at all. Getting good images is basically assured, short of camera movement or putting your finger over the lens. Anybody can take a good picture, even with really cheap equipment. (Compared to the cheap film snapshot cameras of my youth, with their Coke-bottle lenses and fixed focus and exposure settings, where you were lucky to get three or four good shots on a 12-exposure roll, this is remarkable.) Since, in contrast to the days of paying for film/paper/chemistry, it basically costs nothing to snap a picture, you can take dozens/hundreds of a given subject, and most are likely to be very good... technically.

This leads me to two observations: The first is to mourn for the loss of serious skill and craft that was required to become an excellent photographer in the film era. Mastering a manual camera meant coming to understand light/exposure/focus and depth of field/lenses/film emulsions, as well as composition and the trick of shooting at the right instant to capture the defining moment. While this could be a steep learning curve, it was an accomplishment, and the time investment yielded impressive abilities beyond the ordinary joe with his $15 Kodak snapshooter. With the ongoing improvement of film emulsions and camera equipment, the second half of the twentieth century made the learning curve easier and the results even better. Alas, this has pretty much all been completely swept away now, apart from some luddite hobbyists and pros.

And secondly... while everybody can produce great digital images now, most are very lazy (or just clueless) about editing and presenting them. Huge 12- and 16-megapixel images are routinely exchanged, often with vast amounts of unimportant space around the edges. Very few people seem to understand that cropping an image generally results in a more striking, better (and smaller) picture. And folks often go nuts and upload 10, 20, 50 images of some event... when just showing the five or six best ones - the ones capturing the defining moments - would be a lot more impressive. We are drowning in zillions of mediocre (though technically perfect) images that take up vast amounts of cloud storage. (Using film was expensive, so it forced you to think about, previsualize, and take every shot seriously, so you really began the editing process in the camera.)

Anyway, this is progress. Mostly - but not all - good. I don't mean to imply that folks aren't taking great images now, lots are. And folks who have a great eye that would never have been able to master the old craft are making really great ones, which is certainly good news. Technology is supposed to support human creativity and enterprise, and digital imaging does that... but you know, some wonderful things have been lost in the process too.

 

[2jakes]

1969 & the Nikon F Photomic FTn all-black camera.

My first “professional" camera which I purchased in Tokyo.
Now I was going to shoot photos just like the "pros"

I had A lot to learn.

Words cannot express when I got my photos
back from the lab.

My only consolation... at least I got the dog
in the photo.

 

[Zombie_61]

...And secondly... while everybody can produce great digital images now, most are very lazy (or just clueless) about editing and presenting them. Huge 12- and 16-megapixel images are routinely exchanged, often with vast amounts of unimportant space around the edges. Very few people seem to understand that cropping an image generally results in a more striking, better (and smaller) picture...

Used properly, photo editing software can improve even a not-so-great photo. But I agree that most people don't even consider "framing" the image while they're taking the photo, so they end up with either a lot of wasted space or don't capture everything they wanted to. Every "selfie" photo I've posted here on The Lounge has been re-sized, cropped, and usually manipulated in some way (colors, brightness, etc.) in an attempt to show off whichever hat I'm wearing as best I can. It can be time consuming, but the end result is almost always a better photo that doesn't waste a lot of space in these posts and doesn't take as long to load as a larger photo would.

...And folks often go nuts and upload 10, 20, 50 images of some event... when just showing the five or six best ones - the ones capturing the defining moments - would be a lot more impressive....

When my wife and I went to Alaska in July of 2011 I took a lot of photos for two reasons--because I could, and because we don't know if/when we might be able to return. I managed to get some nice scenery shots, but most of those photos were of subjects that would only be interesting to me, so I wouldn't force anyone else to look at them. Hell, I rarely even look at them, but at least I have them when I want to.

 

[GHT]

Before the age of digital, I made good money out of analogue film. A Kodak company called: "Print Movers," collected the negatives from various retail outlets, brought them into their processing laboratories, developed them and returned the prints the next day, collecting the next batch of negatives as they did so. I had the contract with Print Movers to supply vans and drivers to cover an agreed geographic area of Southern England.

The advent of digital saw Print Movers business dramatically decline, they soon went into administration taking me for ten grand when they did. In the UK, your are lucky to get a penny in the pound if that happens, but the receiver found fraudulent activity. It appeared that money had been moved out of Print Movers account prior to going bust, if it could be proved then it was indeed fraud. In the end the receiver paid me something like six and half grand, what a result. I never did find out if fraud had taken place but it was obvious that the receiver had done his job well.

 

[Zombie_61]

Before the age of digital, I made good money out of analogue film. A Kodak company called: "Print Movers," collected the negatives from various retail outlets, brought them into their processing laboratories, developed them and returned the prints the next day, collecting the next batch of negatives as they did so...

There was a huge photo processing facility known as Fox Photo in the city just west of ours. In addition to the volume processing you described they would process film for amateur and semi-amateur photographers. The advent of digital photography put them out of business as well, and the last time I drove past the building it had been converted to a semi-permanent flea market.

 

[Trenchfriend]

The kids, born 1990 are 28, now.

Nah!

 

[Fading Fast]

The kids, born 1990 are 28, now.

Nah!

I booked marked this ⇩ earlier response to you, as I knew it would come in handy. Live life - you are very young.

I mention this to you periodically as it is sincerely intended to help. You are too young to be lamenting your age - which is still very young. Live life - do fun things / do stupid things / do things - and then come back to this thread in 20 or so years and grumble with the rest of us (who will then be too old to type).

 

[2jakes]

I know that I'm getting old when I feel like doing
"fun things / stupid things " but now I find myself asking,
"Are you sure you want to do that?"
When in the past, I would not have given it a second thought.

Thanks to Advil, Ace bandages, Ben Gay, Pepto Bismol
& a hot bath which allows me to do "fun things /stupid things"
today.

 

[Zombie_61]

I booked marked this ⇩ earlier response to you, as I knew it would come in handy. Live life - you are very young.

Hear hear; you'll be truly "old" before you know it.

About 10 years ago I "discovered" a line of tee shirts produced by Old Guys Rule at the local county fair (they didn't have a website at the time). Quality novelty tees, and I liked the humor, so I got one, then another, then another...you get the idea. At the time a number of people (family, friends, and strangers alike) commented, "You aren't old enough to wear that shirt." Now, no one argues the point.

 

[2jakes]

Hear hear; you'll be truly "old" before you know it.

About 10 years ago I "discovered" a line of tee shirts produced by Old Guys Rule at the local county fair (they didn't have a website at the time). Quality novelty tees, and I liked the humor, so I got one, then another, then another...you get the idea. At the time a number of people (family, friends, and strangers alike) commented, "You aren't old enough to wear that shirt." Now, no one argues the point.

I have in one my closets a couple of Borg Fila tennis shirts which
I wore in the '70s.
For those of you not familiar:

Although not overweight...I am no longer comfortable with the snug shirt
or "short" shorts. I look at photos and amazed that I used to walk around
the courts thinking I looked "cool"!
I would post a photo of me...but fear Lizzie would ban me from the
lounge!

 

[Zombie_61]

...Although not overweight...I am no longer comfortable with the snug shirt or "short" shorts. I look at photos and amazed that I used to walk around the courts thinking I looked "cool"!...

Hey, that was the style at the time. I can remember when both tennis and basketball players wore shorts that were so short and tight that they left little to the imagination.

 

[Fading Fast]

I have in one my closets a couple of Borg Fila tennis shirts which
I wore in the '70s.
For those of you not familiar:
View attachment 137493
Although not overweight...I am no longer comfortable with the snug shirt
or "short" shorts. I look at photos and amazed that I used to walk around
the courts thinking I looked "cool"!
I would post a photo of me...but fear Lizzie would ban me from the
lounge!

I think you're safe - if she wasn't patient and reserved in the execution of her powers, I'd have been out of here long ago.

I sincerely have no pictures of myself from the '70s, my mom might, but we weren't a picture taking family. However, I imagine, if we did, I would not be particularly proud of them. Almost no one on earth looked good in the 1970s.