5 ms·

This is the exact opposite of the "rich getting richer!" Whenever we start discussing income and wealth trends in the United States we always neglect how we as

This is the exact opposite of the "rich getting richer!" Whenever we start discussing income and wealth trends in the United States we always neglect how we as a society have gotten richer through technological progress. Even the poorest houses in the USA have computers and tv's that would blow the minds of people from the 1990's and be incomprehensible to people from the 1950's. Cameras have gotten better and better while getting cheaper. Twenty years ago the only people taking photos of this quality were professional photographers. Now we have college students who can work really hard over a school break and be able to afford a great camera setup.

ghaff 11y ago
>Twenty years ago the only people taking photos of this quality were professional photographers. Now we have college students who can work really hard over a school break and be able to afford a great camera setup. Eh. Plenty of amateurs using SLRs were taking good, solid photos 20 or 30 years ago. How do you think the pros got their jobs if not by becoming good photographers first? It is far easier these days is to take photos that are technically proficient especially in difficult light. (My brain probably still holds way too much arcane and now useless information about B&W film processing chemistry.) And, of course, it's far easier for amateurs to get their photos seen.
- myNXTact 11y ago
  How many pictures do you think the average newbie needs to take to become a "proficient" photographer? 10,000? How much would it have cost to develop all that film twenty years ago? A modern user doesn't just have a better camera than those twenty years ago, they also have a built in dark room with unlimited "prints" (digital viewing).
  - ghaff 11y ago
    10,000 is probably high for "proficient"--whatever that means exactly. I was probably shooting a few 36-exposure rolls of B&W film a week when I was in school. A roll of Tri-X is about $5 today and was probably something similar in adjusted dollars then. (We did generally load our own film but that's in the noise.) Chemicals and paper adds a bit more. So, I don't know. $7 x 150 rolls or whatever. So maybe $1000 plus gear. The gear might actually be a bit cheaper than today assuming access to a darkroom. Color would be significantly more but you probably wouldn't do your own processing. To your basic point though. Yes, it's much easier today. The instant feedback, much improved ability to work in low light, no-cost experimentation, easier to use equipment, etc. As a result, I think it's much easier for people to get to the "good enough" stage today even if becoming really accomplished isn't necessarily all that much easier.
efuquen 11y ago
I think he was referring to the fact that his parents were able to pay for travel to dozens of political events, simply to promote their kids hobby. That's great, but I doubt that's an expense must people's parents would be able to incur. Even with that in mind, your claim that even the poorest households in the US have access to computers at home is simply not true. The digital divide is still a very real issue within the U.S. https://www.whitehouse.gov/share/heres-what-digital-divide-looks-united-states https://www.whitehouse.gov/share/heres-what-digital-divide-l...
- privong 11y ago
  > I think he was referring to the fact that his parents were able to pay for travel to dozens of political events, simply to promote their kids hobby. That's great, but I doubt that's an expense must people's parents would be able to incur. That is true... but I also don't understand how that is "the rich get richer"?
URSpider94 11y ago
On the cost of cameras, if anything, they have gotten much more expensive. It used to be possible to buy a pro-quality film camera and prime lens for less than $1,000 -- so, let's say $1500 in today's dollars. More money might get you features like better auto-exposure, auto-focus or high-speed film winders, but a lot of pros didn't use any of those features, and back in the day when I was shooting sports events at my college, I often had a more modern camera rig than the pros sitting next to me. Digital cameras that give similar image quality as those film cameras start at $2,500 today, and go up from there. It feels like the divide between pro and amateur equipment in photography has shot through the roof over the past decade, with the blanket adoption of digital. What has gotten cheaper / more accessible is the ability to publicize, duplicate and distribute one's work. Twenty years ago, short of dropping off prints at the local newspaper, there would be no way for an amateur photographer to get her photos under the nose of photo editors at major news outlets. Today, that's as simple as uploading to Flickr.
- ghaff 11y ago
  I generally agree with you with respect to equipment cost although, to be fair, a lot of that difference is offset by consumables. A Nikon F4 may only have been modestly more expensive than a more consumer-oriented SLR but the pro probably shot thousands of dollars more film during a year. So in addition to distribution, just using the camera has also gotten a lot cheaper.
- throwketchup 11y ago
  You don't need brand new gear though: A used Nikon D2x or D300 on a good lens will produce results as good as most pros would get with film back in the day. Those bodies even drive all the old (cheap) Nikkor AF lenses. Total cost for a body and a couple of high quality AF zooms will run you less than $500 on eBay. If you want to get really cheap, pick up a D1 for $35, a refurbished 55-200 VR for $100, and maybe a 2x teleconverter for $20.
steveoc64 11y ago
>Cameras have gotten better and better while getting cheaper. >Twenty years ago the only people taking photos of this quality were professional photographers. >Now we have college students who can work really hard over a school break and be able to afford a great camera setup. I couldnt agree less. This is not photography that he is doing, its just some sort of expensive and glorified social media thing. Good on him for having an interesting hobby, but please stop confusing this with "Photography" ... it is not. Modern Cameras (just like smartphones) are getting bigger, heavier, more useless, and more expensive than ever. Please stop thinking that this is some kind of "progress". I totally agree with your comment about the quality matching that of "Professional Photographers". The "quality" of these photos is just crap. Soulless, 2 dimensional crap. Its right up there with "Wedding Photography". He may as well just leave all that DSLR garbage at home and take his happy snaps on an iPhone. Real photography is actually more accessible than ever. There is no shortage of stupid in this day and age, and so you will find plenty of excellent kit being sold for pennies, because stupid people think that : - "It cant upload photos to instagram" (Canon 700d .. makes for a great neg scanner) - "Its only 5 megapixels" (Leica Digilux 2) - "You cant buy film anymore" (Canon AE-1, in mint condition, with a whole box full of filters and lenses) - "Wont recharge, and cant get batteries anymore" (Leica M3) - "Not sure how to use it" (Olympus OM-2n, with accessories including a gorgeous 50/1.4 Zuiko) A college student need not work hard to afford a real camera, they need not work at all in fact. As for developing and printing ... coffee grinds, beetroot juice, washing soda, cheap wine ... they all work, and experimenting with them will actually teach the student a whole lot of valuable things across multiple disciplines. After all - that is what they supposedly at college for isnt it ?
- Nutmog 11y ago
  You seem to be saying digital cameras aren't "real cameras". Can you define what makes a camera real? How will the difference be visible in the final pictures? Would a high resolution digital camera with a "film filter" applied to the pictures be just as good? Like the comment in the article, you're not very clear on what "quality" means. What makes a photo soulless or 2 dimensional? This guy's photos certainly had out of focus backgrounds which I think is one way to indicate 3D depth. Would it help it he used an actual 3D camera and presented them for viewing on a 3D monitor? To be honest, it sounds like you're frustrated that a skill you've perhaps spent a lot of time and money on has become easily available to everyone and thus lost most of its value. That happens in life and it's not the end of the world as long as you keep developing yourself. Just ask a programmer.

ghaff 11y ago

>Twenty years ago the only people taking photos of this quality were professional photographers. Now we have college students who can work really hard over a school break and be able to afford a great camera setup. Eh. Plenty of amateurs using SLRs were taking good, solid photos 20 or 30 years ago. How do you think the pros got their jobs if not by becoming good photographers first? It is far easier these days is to take photos that are technically proficient especially in difficult light. (My brain probably still holds way too much arcane and now useless information about B&W film processing chemistry.) And, of course, it's far easier for amateurs to get their photos seen.

myNXTact 11y ago
How many pictures do you think the average newbie needs to take to become a "proficient" photographer? 10,000? How much would it have cost to develop all that film twenty years ago? A modern user doesn't just have a better camera than those twenty years ago, they also have a built in dark room with unlimited "prints" (digital viewing).
- ghaff 11y ago
  10,000 is probably high for "proficient"--whatever that means exactly. I was probably shooting a few 36-exposure rolls of B&W film a week when I was in school. A roll of Tri-X is about $5 today and was probably something similar in adjusted dollars then. (We did generally load our own film but that's in the noise.) Chemicals and paper adds a bit more. So, I don't know. $7 x 150 rolls or whatever. So maybe $1000 plus gear. The gear might actually be a bit cheaper than today assuming access to a darkroom. Color would be significantly more but you probably wouldn't do your own processing. To your basic point though. Yes, it's much easier today. The instant feedback, much improved ability to work in low light, no-cost experimentation, easier to use equipment, etc. As a result, I think it's much easier for people to get to the "good enough" stage today even if becoming really accomplished isn't necessarily all that much easier.

efuquen 11y ago

I think he was referring to the fact that his parents were able to pay for travel to dozens of political events, simply to promote their kids hobby. That's great, but I doubt that's an expense must people's parents would be able to incur. Even with that in mind, your claim that even the poorest households in the US have access to computers at home is simply not true. The digital divide is still a very real issue within the U.S. https://www.whitehouse.gov/share/heres-what-digital-divide-looks-united-states https://www.whitehouse.gov/share/heres-what-digital-divide-l...

privong 11y ago
> I think he was referring to the fact that his parents were able to pay for travel to dozens of political events, simply to promote their kids hobby. That's great, but I doubt that's an expense must people's parents would be able to incur. That is true... but I also don't understand how that is "the rich get richer"?

URSpider94 11y ago

On the cost of cameras, if anything, they have gotten much more expensive. It used to be possible to buy a pro-quality film camera and prime lens for less than $1,000 -- so, let's say $1500 in today's dollars. More money might get you features like better auto-exposure, auto-focus or high-speed film winders, but a lot of pros didn't use any of those features, and back in the day when I was shooting sports events at my college, I often had a more modern camera rig than the pros sitting next to me. Digital cameras that give similar image quality as those film cameras start at $2,500 today, and go up from there. It feels like the divide between pro and amateur equipment in photography has shot through the roof over the past decade, with the blanket adoption of digital. What has gotten cheaper / more accessible is the ability to publicize, duplicate and distribute one's work. Twenty years ago, short of dropping off prints at the local newspaper, there would be no way for an amateur photographer to get her photos under the nose of photo editors at major news outlets. Today, that's as simple as uploading to Flickr.

ghaff 11y ago
I generally agree with you with respect to equipment cost although, to be fair, a lot of that difference is offset by consumables. A Nikon F4 may only have been modestly more expensive than a more consumer-oriented SLR but the pro probably shot thousands of dollars more film during a year. So in addition to distribution, just using the camera has also gotten a lot cheaper.
throwketchup 11y ago
You don't need brand new gear though: A used Nikon D2x or D300 on a good lens will produce results as good as most pros would get with film back in the day. Those bodies even drive all the old (cheap) Nikkor AF lenses. Total cost for a body and a couple of high quality AF zooms will run you less than $500 on eBay. If you want to get really cheap, pick up a D1 for $35, a refurbished 55-200 VR for $100, and maybe a 2x teleconverter for $20.

steveoc64 11y ago

>Cameras have gotten better and better while getting cheaper. >Twenty years ago the only people taking photos of this quality were professional photographers. >Now we have college students who can work really hard over a school break and be able to afford a great camera setup. I couldnt agree less. This is not photography that he is doing, its just some sort of expensive and glorified social media thing. Good on him for having an interesting hobby, but please stop confusing this with "Photography" ... it is not. Modern Cameras (just like smartphones) are getting bigger, heavier, more useless, and more expensive than ever. Please stop thinking that this is some kind of "progress". I totally agree with your comment about the quality matching that of "Professional Photographers". The "quality" of these photos is just crap. Soulless, 2 dimensional crap. Its right up there with "Wedding Photography". He may as well just leave all that DSLR garbage at home and take his happy snaps on an iPhone. Real photography is actually more accessible than ever. There is no shortage of stupid in this day and age, and so you will find plenty of excellent kit being sold for pennies, because stupid people think that : - "It cant upload photos to instagram" (Canon 700d .. makes for a great neg scanner) - "Its only 5 megapixels" (Leica Digilux 2) - "You cant buy film anymore" (Canon AE-1, in mint condition, with a whole box full of filters and lenses) - "Wont recharge, and cant get batteries anymore" (Leica M3) - "Not sure how to use it" (Olympus OM-2n, with accessories including a gorgeous 50/1.4 Zuiko) A college student need not work hard to afford a real camera, they need not work at all in fact. As for developing and printing ... coffee grinds, beetroot juice, washing soda, cheap wine ... they all work, and experimenting with them will actually teach the student a whole lot of valuable things across multiple disciplines. After all - that is what they supposedly at college for isnt it ?

Nutmog 11y ago
You seem to be saying digital cameras aren't "real cameras". Can you define what makes a camera real? How will the difference be visible in the final pictures? Would a high resolution digital camera with a "film filter" applied to the pictures be just as good? Like the comment in the article, you're not very clear on what "quality" means. What makes a photo soulless or 2 dimensional? This guy's photos certainly had out of focus backgrounds which I think is one way to indicate 3D depth. Would it help it he used an actual 3D camera and presented them for viewing on a 3D monitor? To be honest, it sounds like you're frustrated that a skill you've perhaps spent a lot of time and money on has become easily available to everyone and thus lost most of its value. That happens in life and it's not the end of the world as long as you keep developing yourself. Just ask a programmer.