34 ms·

Now I feel old. I remember vividly running around with my first camera, looking for objects worthy of being photographed. The film cost money, so did developing

by krylon 5y ago

Now I feel old. I remember vividly running around with my first camera, looking for objects worthy of being photographed. The film cost money, so did developing it into pictures. I really had to weigh the pros and cons of taking a particular picture. And in a class of ~25 kids, I was one of three who owned a camera. Not that it was such a luxury item, but most people weren't into that. These days, (nearly) everyone carries a camera around all the time, and one that is quite probably much better than the one I had in 1992. They can take dozens, even hundreds of pictures without breaking a sweat, and it does not cost anything. Nostalgia is a very warped mirror. Back then, I did not miss the ability to take dozens of pictures at no cost, because the option did not exist. Was it better? Worse? Neither, I think. But this is the first time I feel old and appreciate it for the history I have lived through. Getting old is weird, but it sure is interesting. (For reference, I'm 40. "That's not old", I hear someone say, but I have never been this old before, so for me it's all new.)

progman32 5y ago
I remember back when I got my first digital camera, people would routinely ask me "ok but how do you look at the pictures? Do you just print them out?". Looking at them on a screen was almost unfathomable. Nowadays, a physical album seems to have taken the place of your camera in the 90s. Not quite a luxury item, but you'd have to be "into that" to go to the trouble of making a physical album.
- beamatronic 5y ago
  The difference is that we spend all of our waking hours in front of screens of differing sizes
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    Not all of us. I too grew up when screen time meant a few hours of TV a week, tops. And having a connection to another world of opinions or clubs or virtual activities is better than the past without them. My kids have limited screen time, not unlike my parents pushing me outside to play. Until they have mature impulse control and a variety of experience I'll continue to guide them. But without all the judgemental 'lessons' and talking down to that I experienced.
    - 90ee0bde-06d1 5y ago
      There isn't any evidence that screen time negatively impacts teen's well being: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0506-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0506-1
- psychomugs 5y ago
  I once sent a friend a photograph I had taken of them on black-and-white film (Olympus XA with Kodak Tri-X). They were flabbergasted when they asked for the full-color version and I told them it didn't exist.
lordnacho 5y ago
Regarding photos: People our age only have a few childhood pictures, and they are warped by time on analog media. Those pictures of us as a kid look really old because they are naturally filtered. Soon people will wonder WTF old-pic filters are for, and some historian will have to explain why it's blurred and the colors are faded. Also why did people have clothes for each decade? Our kids, by contrast, have had pictures taken of them every week at least. With metadata so you know where you were. And they're digital images that won't fade. When our kids are 40, they can look at an archive of how they looked pretty much every week of their lives. Not only that, they can already search the archive for particular situations.
- fud7r7rgtf 5y ago
  This seems at least somewhat cultural. My family was big on photo albums so nearly everything had at least a cheap disposable camera picture taken. It wasn't to the extent it is now but you still got multiple pictures per year for birthdays, holidays, school awards, extracurriculars like ymca sports, etc.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    Yes, my grandmother has photo albums of all her grandchildren that she likes to bring out when we go to visit.
- theyellowkid 5y ago
  Looking back, I wish everyone had taken pictures of everyday life (probably with an Instamatic). Christmas pictures, awards, meh. What I really want are pictures of the halls in high school, street racing, parties with giant bonfires and beer.
  - psychomugs 5y ago
    I feel like the optimal living-documenting ratio was right before the advent of digital cameras: photography was accessible enough, but there was enough disconnect between the event and the record to be present. Now it's much easier to live through the phone's what-you-see-is-what-you-get viewfinder [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27697921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27697921
rapnie 5y ago
And he doesn't even mention that you could just be outside, and be unreachable and not able to reach other people too. As a kid I used to play outside a lot, and my mother had no clue where I was, nor could she easily find out. I could be outside all day without her worrying that I'd be abducted or involved in an accident. Now that all has completely changed, and my mother has too. Some years ago when I walked into the hallway of my house I coincidentally noticed a lot of people in front of my door. So I opened it, and it was the police that was about to bust the door with a battering ram. As it happened I hadn't answered my phone in a couple of hours. After multiple calls unanswered, my mom had called 911 on me. And my doorbell was broken, police didn't even knock.. they wanted the action, probably. I was just freaking programming with the deep-work-destroying phone thingy on silence (where it should be most of the time, imho).
- cryptoz 5y ago
  That's terrifying, I'm sorry that happened to you. Something I have done (accidentally at first, now on purpose) is to not respond to messages (personal) quickly, most of the time. People adjust to that rather fast and stop worrying so much. People in my circles know now that I am rarely going to answer within a few hours and expectations are adjusted. So then going outside for a few hours with no phone is no longer a "thing" - you just do it and people will expect you to get back to them when you do.
  - rapnie 5y ago
    I do that too. My phone is still on silent most of the time. It is funny the reactions you get when people aren't yet used to not getting a quick response. They are sort of outraged and questioning: "I called you, but you didn't answer??". Also I go outside without a phone on occasion. That feels like you leave a burden behind, and you are somehow more free. The phone is that easy thing you just grab to do a quick check of something on Wikipedia, or you happen to notice a notification. It is a distraction-device, keeping you busy. And among strangers, feeling less comfortable, well you can grab your phone and start staring at it. This behavior is like with smoking. Just like the relaxed cigarette cowboy in the ads, but now you casually light up the screen and be cool.
jhgb 5y ago
> These days, (nearly) everyone carries a camera around all the time, and one that is quite probably much better than the one I had in 1992. They can take dozens, even hundreds of pictures without breaking a sweat, and it does not cost anything. ...and despite that, pictures of UFOs are as awful as ever. ;)
- container 5y ago
  I tried taking a photo of the moon a while ago on my phone, and I couldn't really get it to look decent. I don't know if most smartphone users even know how to adjust the exposure setting even if any of that helped. And if they saw something as interesting as a UFO, I don't think they would figure it out on the spot either. I'm not sure if automatic settings would cut it on a fancier phone.
  - Smashure 5y ago
    I’ll settle for bad video from tons of angles. Today if you hovered a UFO over any city over 1000 people you will get endless footage of the event. I’m waiting for said event.
  - mrunseen 5y ago
    It is because of focal length. Although phone manufacturers started to put “tele” cameras, primary camera is wide. Wide lenses mean there will be more coverage but things will get smaller, which happens with moon.
elwell 5y ago
> but I have never been this old before, so for me it's all new How poetic
theyellowkid 5y ago
Old is owning a PlayTape Music Machine.
xtracto 5y ago
Back in 1992 when I was 10 years old we went to Disney World with my family (as a middle class Mexican family, that was one of 2 out of the country trips in our childhood). My brother (2 years older) and I had a mechanical camera with rolls of I think 12 or 20 photos (with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110_film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110_film ) . We've got at most 30 pictures of that trip in our family albums. I wish we had taken more pictures as my memory of the trip has faded away quite a bit.
- euroderf 5y ago
  I had a Polaroid Swinger. Few of its pictures survive to this day. "It's more than a camera... it's almost alive! It's only nineteen dollars... and ninety-five!" In those days this was not cheap. And... after _every_ picture you had to carefully take the photo by the edges, then open the film canister of the special Polaroid photo preservative and take out the foam sponge and carefully wipe it across the photo a couple of times for complete coverage and then wait half a minute for it to dry before doing anything with it. Sorta lessened the spontaneity of owning a Polaroid.
technological 5y ago
I wish my parents had smartphone camera when I was small because amount of pics/video I capture of my kid and feel so excited about the thought that he could view his entire childhood . I remember few things from my childhood but it would been really fascinating to view that
JohnTHaller 5y ago
One thing I've noticed is that while everyone can take photos and video anytime they want to, many folks simply forget to. How many people have you seen who have timelines of only selfies, food, and/or cats/dogs. I've been making a point to take just a few photos or videos while spending time with friends after a show and many of my friends are thankful when I do and share them (directly, not online and tagging them).
throwawayboise 5y ago
It's weird, that even though I have a camera with me all the time now, I take way fewer pictures than I did in 1982.
foobiekr 5y ago
As my first camera was a Kodak Disc, I have the nice experience that literally every digital camera has been better than my first film camera.
- kalleboo 5y ago
  I can second that - My first camera was a 110 toy camera (I once got a flip flash for it!). My second camera was a point-and-shoot APS camera. Even many of the photos I took with my early Sony Ericsson phone cameras (K800) were better
vmception 5y ago
You can still do that if you want. Some people like the limitations and finality.
gdubya 5y ago
Exactly! We're never old, we're new, constantly. :)
Gauge_Irrahphe 5y ago
Smartphone cameras are nowhere near analog photos, there is just no way to make a good camera so small.
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  I don't know - smartphone cameras are at least as good or better than disposable cameras were. The same can be said for the quality of camera most folks had. I remember that little camera that took 110 film. And oh, I've seen many: I worked at a pharmacy, where one of my duties was developing film and helping folks print digital prints. As digital cameras grew better, cheaper, and more widely distributed (thanks in no small part to smartphones), regular film just dropped sharply. A few folks care, and will sometimes get a fancier digital camera if they can afford it. The vast majority of folks, though, don't seem to care as long as they have the pictures. Realistically, all a lot of folks want is an instant point and click.
agumonkey 5y ago
There was a short doc about a young analog photographer who said that the freeness made him hoard shots. And that the film development plus the necessity of choosing shots made the whole activity a lot deeper for him. I deeply believe that we need structures and limits otherwise it's too easy to become metaphorically obese.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  Probably depends on the person, too. I do take significantly more pictures than I would with a film camera, but this also affords me the freedom to take the pictures right there and then, and not agonise over whether "a shot is worth it". And yet, I don't end up with thousands or even hundreds of pictures. Almost a full year of 365 challenge somehow taught me to look out for actual good shots, and not obsessively hold the shutter button to everything.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by krylon 5y ago

progman32 5y ago

I remember back when I got my first digital camera, people would routinely ask me "ok but how do you look at the pictures? Do you just print them out?". Looking at them on a screen was almost unfathomable. Nowadays, a physical album seems to have taken the place of your camera in the 90s. Not quite a luxury item, but you'd have to be "into that" to go to the trouble of making a physical album.

beamatronic 5y ago
The difference is that we spend all of our waking hours in front of screens of differing sizes
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  Not all of us. I too grew up when screen time meant a few hours of TV a week, tops. And having a connection to another world of opinions or clubs or virtual activities is better than the past without them. My kids have limited screen time, not unlike my parents pushing me outside to play. Until they have mature impulse control and a variety of experience I'll continue to guide them. But without all the judgemental 'lessons' and talking down to that I experienced.
  - 90ee0bde-06d1 5y ago
    There isn't any evidence that screen time negatively impacts teen's well being: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0506-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0506-1
psychomugs 5y ago
I once sent a friend a photograph I had taken of them on black-and-white film (Olympus XA with Kodak Tri-X). They were flabbergasted when they asked for the full-color version and I told them it didn't exist.

lordnacho 5y ago

Regarding photos: People our age only have a few childhood pictures, and they are warped by time on analog media. Those pictures of us as a kid look really old because they are naturally filtered. Soon people will wonder WTF old-pic filters are for, and some historian will have to explain why it's blurred and the colors are faded. Also why did people have clothes for each decade? Our kids, by contrast, have had pictures taken of them every week at least. With metadata so you know where you were. And they're digital images that won't fade. When our kids are 40, they can look at an archive of how they looked pretty much every week of their lives. Not only that, they can already search the archive for particular situations.

fud7r7rgtf 5y ago
This seems at least somewhat cultural. My family was big on photo albums so nearly everything had at least a cheap disposable camera picture taken. It wasn't to the extent it is now but you still got multiple pictures per year for birthdays, holidays, school awards, extracurriculars like ymca sports, etc.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  Yes, my grandmother has photo albums of all her grandchildren that she likes to bring out when we go to visit.
theyellowkid 5y ago
Looking back, I wish everyone had taken pictures of everyday life (probably with an Instamatic). Christmas pictures, awards, meh. What I really want are pictures of the halls in high school, street racing, parties with giant bonfires and beer.
- psychomugs 5y ago
  I feel like the optimal living-documenting ratio was right before the advent of digital cameras: photography was accessible enough, but there was enough disconnect between the event and the record to be present. Now it's much easier to live through the phone's what-you-see-is-what-you-get viewfinder [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27697921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27697921

rapnie 5y ago

And he doesn't even mention that you could just be outside, and be unreachable and not able to reach other people too. As a kid I used to play outside a lot, and my mother had no clue where I was, nor could she easily find out. I could be outside all day without her worrying that I'd be abducted or involved in an accident. Now that all has completely changed, and my mother has too. Some years ago when I walked into the hallway of my house I coincidentally noticed a lot of people in front of my door. So I opened it, and it was the police that was about to bust the door with a battering ram. As it happened I hadn't answered my phone in a couple of hours. After multiple calls unanswered, my mom had called 911 on me. And my doorbell was broken, police didn't even knock.. they wanted the action, probably. I was just freaking programming with the deep-work-destroying phone thingy on silence (where it should be most of the time, imho).

cryptoz 5y ago
That's terrifying, I'm sorry that happened to you. Something I have done (accidentally at first, now on purpose) is to not respond to messages (personal) quickly, most of the time. People adjust to that rather fast and stop worrying so much. People in my circles know now that I am rarely going to answer within a few hours and expectations are adjusted. So then going outside for a few hours with no phone is no longer a "thing" - you just do it and people will expect you to get back to them when you do.
- rapnie 5y ago
  I do that too. My phone is still on silent most of the time. It is funny the reactions you get when people aren't yet used to not getting a quick response. They are sort of outraged and questioning: "I called you, but you didn't answer??". Also I go outside without a phone on occasion. That feels like you leave a burden behind, and you are somehow more free. The phone is that easy thing you just grab to do a quick check of something on Wikipedia, or you happen to notice a notification. It is a distraction-device, keeping you busy. And among strangers, feeling less comfortable, well you can grab your phone and start staring at it. This behavior is like with smoking. Just like the relaxed cigarette cowboy in the ads, but now you casually light up the screen and be cool.

jhgb 5y ago

> These days, (nearly) everyone carries a camera around all the time, and one that is quite probably much better than the one I had in 1992. They can take dozens, even hundreds of pictures without breaking a sweat, and it does not cost anything. ...and despite that, pictures of UFOs are as awful as ever. ;)

container 5y ago
I tried taking a photo of the moon a while ago on my phone, and I couldn't really get it to look decent. I don't know if most smartphone users even know how to adjust the exposure setting even if any of that helped. And if they saw something as interesting as a UFO, I don't think they would figure it out on the spot either. I'm not sure if automatic settings would cut it on a fancier phone.
- Smashure 5y ago
  I’ll settle for bad video from tons of angles. Today if you hovered a UFO over any city over 1000 people you will get endless footage of the event. I’m waiting for said event.
- mrunseen 5y ago
  It is because of focal length. Although phone manufacturers started to put “tele” cameras, primary camera is wide. Wide lenses mean there will be more coverage but things will get smaller, which happens with moon.

elwell 5y ago

> but I have never been this old before, so for me it's all new How poetic

theyellowkid 5y ago

Old is owning a PlayTape Music Machine.

xtracto 5y ago

Back in 1992 when I was 10 years old we went to Disney World with my family (as a middle class Mexican family, that was one of 2 out of the country trips in our childhood). My brother (2 years older) and I had a mechanical camera with rolls of I think 12 or 20 photos (with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110_film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110_film ) . We've got at most 30 pictures of that trip in our family albums. I wish we had taken more pictures as my memory of the trip has faded away quite a bit.

euroderf 5y ago
I had a Polaroid Swinger. Few of its pictures survive to this day. "It's more than a camera... it's almost alive! It's only nineteen dollars... and ninety-five!" In those days this was not cheap. And... after _every_ picture you had to carefully take the photo by the edges, then open the film canister of the special Polaroid photo preservative and take out the foam sponge and carefully wipe it across the photo a couple of times for complete coverage and then wait half a minute for it to dry before doing anything with it. Sorta lessened the spontaneity of owning a Polaroid.

technological 5y ago

I wish my parents had smartphone camera when I was small because amount of pics/video I capture of my kid and feel so excited about the thought that he could view his entire childhood . I remember few things from my childhood but it would been really fascinating to view that

JohnTHaller 5y ago

One thing I've noticed is that while everyone can take photos and video anytime they want to, many folks simply forget to. How many people have you seen who have timelines of only selfies, food, and/or cats/dogs. I've been making a point to take just a few photos or videos while spending time with friends after a show and many of my friends are thankful when I do and share them (directly, not online and tagging them).

throwawayboise 5y ago

It's weird, that even though I have a camera with me all the time now, I take way fewer pictures than I did in 1982.

foobiekr 5y ago

As my first camera was a Kodak Disc, I have the nice experience that literally every digital camera has been better than my first film camera.

kalleboo 5y ago
I can second that - My first camera was a 110 toy camera (I once got a flip flash for it!). My second camera was a point-and-shoot APS camera. Even many of the photos I took with my early Sony Ericsson phone cameras (K800) were better

vmception 5y ago

You can still do that if you want. Some people like the limitations and finality.

gdubya 5y ago

Exactly! We're never old, we're new, constantly. :)

Gauge_Irrahphe 5y ago

Smartphone cameras are nowhere near analog photos, there is just no way to make a good camera so small.

Broken_Hippo 5y ago
I don't know - smartphone cameras are at least as good or better than disposable cameras were. The same can be said for the quality of camera most folks had. I remember that little camera that took 110 film. And oh, I've seen many: I worked at a pharmacy, where one of my duties was developing film and helping folks print digital prints. As digital cameras grew better, cheaper, and more widely distributed (thanks in no small part to smartphones), regular film just dropped sharply. A few folks care, and will sometimes get a fancier digital camera if they can afford it. The vast majority of folks, though, don't seem to care as long as they have the pictures. Realistically, all a lot of folks want is an instant point and click.

agumonkey 5y ago

There was a short doc about a young analog photographer who said that the freeness made him hoard shots. And that the film development plus the necessity of choosing shots made the whole activity a lot deeper for him. I deeply believe that we need structures and limits otherwise it's too easy to become metaphorically obese.

dmitriid 5y ago
Probably depends on the person, too. I do take significantly more pictures than I would with a film camera, but this also affords me the freedom to take the pictures right there and then, and not agonise over whether "a shot is worth it". And yet, I don't end up with thousands or even hundreds of pictures. Almost a full year of 365 challenge somehow taught me to look out for actual good shots, and not obsessively hold the shutter button to everything.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]