3 ms·

Digital photography democratized photography in ways digital theater projection didn't/couldn't. Digital projection lowered operational costs for studios signif

Digital photography democratized photography in ways digital theater projection didn't/couldn't. Digital projection lowered operational costs for studios significantly and theaters marginally. It didn't do anything for consumers. They got a marginally better experience at the same or higher ticket and concession prices. Digital photography however opened the field to whole swaths of people. The operational cost of photography was a major blocker for a lot of people. The operational cost of a film camera can be integer multiples of its purchase cost. Acceptable digital cameras after about 2000 cost more than shitty 110mm cameras but about what a midrange film camera did but then had effectively zero operational cost. The cost of acceptable quality point & shoots decreased significantly in the first half of the 00s. This got cameras in people's hands that would have never been able to afford to shoot film.

steveBK123 3y ago
I don't think "democratized photography" is strictly the correct interpretation. It lowered the marginal cost of a photograph to $0, and so people took many many many more photos. But certainly in 2000, anyone buying a $400+ point&shoot digicam also owned a $2000 computer. Far more expensive against the typical era family vacation/birthday/wedding shooter with a $200ish camera, plus $9 film&dev per 36 shots. These typical users took maybe 5-12 rolls/year so there really weren't any savings there. Most of these people weren't shooting SLRs, but like a Canon Sure Shot. I distinctly remember switching BACK to film for years in college around this era because film SLR equivalent was absurdly cheap compared to buying even an APS-C DSLR.
- giantrobot 3y ago
  I think "democratized photography" is a perfectly cromulent statement to make. The cost of the PC is immaterial. People already had a PC for e-mail and porn. The average PC cost was also below $1000, not $2000. Even if they never bought a camera they still had a PC for e-mail and porn. Photography got democratized because two different groups went digital: the 12-roll-per-year shooters and people that would never pay $10 a roll to get film developed. By 2000 there were 1-2MP point & shoots for $400 and just two years later such cameras were under $150. By the middle of the decade that would get 4-5MP (with a better overall sensor) and 10MP by the end of the decade (with yet better sensors). Both groups were well served by the advantages of digital. They had a big viewfinder and could review photos on the camera. The 12-roll-a-year crowd could take a year's worth of photos at a single event. The new-camera-owner set could take only a handful of photos and not feel guilty for "wasting" their camera. Both groups could shoot trivial things they'd never waste film on. Anecdata: I got interested in photography around 99/00. The marginal cost of film ended up being prohibitive to me. I could barely afford to take enough photos to just learn the ins and outs of my camera. I then got a cheap digital point & shoot. It was 1.3MP and pretty much garbage quality optics. I used the everloving shit out of it and really learned how to use it. I learned to frame shots and to effectively use lighting. Just the fact I could take dozens of photos on a pair of rechargeable AA batteries just let me practice and experiment.

steveBK123 3y ago

I don't think "democratized photography" is strictly the correct interpretation. It lowered the marginal cost of a photograph to $0, and so people took many many many more photos. But certainly in 2000, anyone buying a $400+ point&shoot digicam also owned a $2000 computer. Far more expensive against the typical era family vacation/birthday/wedding shooter with a $200ish camera, plus $9 film&dev per 36 shots. These typical users took maybe 5-12 rolls/year so there really weren't any savings there. Most of these people weren't shooting SLRs, but like a Canon Sure Shot. I distinctly remember switching BACK to film for years in college around this era because film SLR equivalent was absurdly cheap compared to buying even an APS-C DSLR.

giantrobot 3y ago
I think "democratized photography" is a perfectly cromulent statement to make. The cost of the PC is immaterial. People already had a PC for e-mail and porn. The average PC cost was also below $1000, not $2000. Even if they never bought a camera they still had a PC for e-mail and porn. Photography got democratized because two different groups went digital: the 12-roll-per-year shooters and people that would never pay $10 a roll to get film developed. By 2000 there were 1-2MP point & shoots for $400 and just two years later such cameras were under $150. By the middle of the decade that would get 4-5MP (with a better overall sensor) and 10MP by the end of the decade (with yet better sensors). Both groups were well served by the advantages of digital. They had a big viewfinder and could review photos on the camera. The 12-roll-a-year crowd could take a year's worth of photos at a single event. The new-camera-owner set could take only a handful of photos and not feel guilty for "wasting" their camera. Both groups could shoot trivial things they'd never waste film on. Anecdata: I got interested in photography around 99/00. The marginal cost of film ended up being prohibitive to me. I could barely afford to take enough photos to just learn the ins and outs of my camera. I then got a cheap digital point & shoot. It was 1.3MP and pretty much garbage quality optics. I used the everloving shit out of it and really learned how to use it. I learned to frame shots and to effectively use lighting. Just the fact I could take dozens of photos on a pair of rechargeable AA batteries just let me practice and experiment.