3 ms·

Before social media, they would be taking photos (and later videos) just the same. In fact, before they became ubiquitous in phones, people used to buy cameras

Before social media, they would be taking photos (and later videos) just the same. In fact, before they became ubiquitous in phones, people used to buy cameras (and extra film) specifically for the purpose of using them in their travels.

eesmith 2mo ago
The survey result is 'nearly four in ten travellers (39%) say they have visited a tourist site mainly to take a photo or record a video.' You, I believe, are making a different observation, which is that taking a photo or recording a film has long been a component of many tourist trips. Which is of course true. I'll add that likely more people would have done so had film and film development been a lot cheaper. We certainly did trips in the 1980s where we took no camera, or if we did, only a few pictures or perhaps a single roll.
- rhdunn 2mo ago
  Digital cameras have existed before phones had the capability and have been around for a long time (at least 20 years). They made it a lot easier to take photos as you can take hundreds/thousands of photos and download them when you get home. When visiting places on holiday, I've taken my camera with me for the purpose of taking photos. I've also seen people with more expensive cameras (mainly larger lenses) camped out near puffins, on boat trips, etc. with the intention of getting a decent wildlife photo.
  - eesmith 2mo ago
    Yes, photo safaris have been a thing since at least the 1960s, when it was all film cameras, and the term "shutterbugs" used since at least the 1940s. Indeed, now that you bring it up, I think a good interpretation of this survey is that more people now are doing photo safaris than they did some decades ago, where "safari" takes on a broader meaning tied to popular culture trends. It think it's like how many people go to the Louvre for the sole purpose of seeing (and photographing) the Mona Lisa, or (more distantly) the standard itinerary of the Grand Tour, both done because that's what everyone else (that they care about) thinks is the right or cool thing to do.
  - Markoff 2mo ago
    not really long time, certainly not 20 years, digital camera quality by the end of 90s was pretty bad (at least those for reasonable prices, bought my first by then) comparable with phone cameras by the end of 00s, where you had relatively decent Nokia Symbian phones, so the difference is like ~10 years, similar with social media (Facebook), which was becoming a thing by the end of 00s but I agree with overall sentiment digital cameras allowed basically unlimited number of photos compared to film cameras and were revolutionary in this aspect not being limited by expensive film rolls and related expenses
    - rhdunn 2mo ago
      20 years ago is 2006. I'm pretty sure I had a digital camera (DSLR) around that time with enough resolution (10 megapixels, IIRC) for decent photos. Wikipedia notes that the Canon EOS 1D Mark III [1] was released in 2007 with 10MP. According to wikipedia [2] the first consumer DSLR camera was in 2000. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-1D_Mark_III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-1D_Mark_III [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_single-lens_reflex_camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_single-lens_reflex_cam...
      - Markoff 1mo ago
        that's not what you wrote though "Digital cameras have existed before phones had the capability and have been around for a long time (at least 20 years)." that reads like they have been around for a long time (at least 20 years) before phones had the capability and they have been around closer to 30 years rather than only 20, I've had my first digital camera like 24-25 years ago and was pretty poor back then, so even poor people could afford it, for middle class it would be more like 30 years ago almost
lazide 2mo ago
Kinda - it used to be the reach of vacation photos was relatively limited, so the degree of aggressiveness was also relatively limited. Going literally to just get photos was also somewhat limited, because who would be crazy enough to go just to get photos for a few friends and acquaintances and never even attempt to enjoy it? A limited number of people. Social media has really amped it up, including the competitive aspect of it, and the number of people trying to be professional at it.
- koliber 2mo ago
  National Geographic and BBC would send photographers to a place for the sole purpose of taking a photo. Regular people did not do that.
  - riffraff 2mo ago
    I think TFA does not make this very clear, but it really depends on what "tourist site" is. In the past nobody went to London to take a picture of a phone booth, but you did take a picture of a phone booth anyway. You'd go to the Horse Guards spot to take a picture, not to enjoy the horses. In this sense, regular people do visit a spot just to take a picture, and have always done that.
- Aurornis 2mo ago
  > and never even attempt to enjoy it? They are enjoying it. They're enjoying it in their own way, and I think there's nothing wrong with that. I did a little bit of travel when I was young before smartphones were everywhere. There were definitely tourists going to spots to take a picture and then leaving.
  - lazide 2mo ago
    The folks I’m talking about would literally never go if it wasn’t for a photo op (not taking pictures, but GOING TO TAKE A SPECIFIC PICTURE OF THEM THERE.). It’s literally like a job to them. You can tell when you watch them. They aren’t going to see a thing and take pictures. they are going to be have pictures of them being there, specifically, to screw with people back home. I do think there is something wrong with that.
koliber 2mo ago
People take photos for multiple reasons. I like the memories. I enjoy looking through a photo album many years down the line and reminiscing about a great trip. People take photos to brag. People take photos to prove to non-believers that something happened. People take photos to capture beauty. People used to take photos and people continue to take photos. I suspect the reason has changed.
- dylan604 2mo ago
  People used get together to show their vacations as slide shows with a projector to family and friends and make a "party" out of it. If they were really fancy, they might have even had 8mm motion film to show. It always felt really strange to me then as a bit of bragging and showing off. I was told it was a bit of living vicariously through other's adventures, but it just felt weird to me. Maybe that's why watching other people on social media gives me the same creepy vibe.
  - koliber 2mo ago
    If I read the stats in the original article correctly, you and I are in the 1/5th of the population that feels this way about it.
gherkinnn 2mo ago
Look at it this way: would those four out of ten people have visited those places if they weren't allowed to take any photos or videos? And how many would do a thing if they weren't allowed to tell anyone afterwards?
madaxe_again 2mo ago
Tell me you’re Gen Z without telling me you’re Gen Z. No, it was not always thus. People would take a camera or a disposable camera, sure, but it wasn’t the focus - it was “oh we should grab a photo for aunt Mabel”. And you’d have 30 shots. For the entire trip.

eesmith 2mo ago

The survey result is 'nearly four in ten travellers (39%) say they have visited a tourist site mainly to take a photo or record a video.' You, I believe, are making a different observation, which is that taking a photo or recording a film has long been a component of many tourist trips. Which is of course true. I'll add that likely more people would have done so had film and film development been a lot cheaper. We certainly did trips in the 1980s where we took no camera, or if we did, only a few pictures or perhaps a single roll.

rhdunn 2mo ago
Digital cameras have existed before phones had the capability and have been around for a long time (at least 20 years). They made it a lot easier to take photos as you can take hundreds/thousands of photos and download them when you get home. When visiting places on holiday, I've taken my camera with me for the purpose of taking photos. I've also seen people with more expensive cameras (mainly larger lenses) camped out near puffins, on boat trips, etc. with the intention of getting a decent wildlife photo.
- eesmith 2mo ago
  Yes, photo safaris have been a thing since at least the 1960s, when it was all film cameras, and the term "shutterbugs" used since at least the 1940s. Indeed, now that you bring it up, I think a good interpretation of this survey is that more people now are doing photo safaris than they did some decades ago, where "safari" takes on a broader meaning tied to popular culture trends. It think it's like how many people go to the Louvre for the sole purpose of seeing (and photographing) the Mona Lisa, or (more distantly) the standard itinerary of the Grand Tour, both done because that's what everyone else (that they care about) thinks is the right or cool thing to do.
- Markoff 2mo ago
  not really long time, certainly not 20 years, digital camera quality by the end of 90s was pretty bad (at least those for reasonable prices, bought my first by then) comparable with phone cameras by the end of 00s, where you had relatively decent Nokia Symbian phones, so the difference is like ~10 years, similar with social media (Facebook), which was becoming a thing by the end of 00s but I agree with overall sentiment digital cameras allowed basically unlimited number of photos compared to film cameras and were revolutionary in this aspect not being limited by expensive film rolls and related expenses
  - rhdunn 2mo ago
    20 years ago is 2006. I'm pretty sure I had a digital camera (DSLR) around that time with enough resolution (10 megapixels, IIRC) for decent photos. Wikipedia notes that the Canon EOS 1D Mark III [1] was released in 2007 with 10MP. According to wikipedia [2] the first consumer DSLR camera was in 2000. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-1D_Mark_III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-1D_Mark_III [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_single-lens_reflex_camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_single-lens_reflex_cam...
    - Markoff 1mo ago
      that's not what you wrote though "Digital cameras have existed before phones had the capability and have been around for a long time (at least 20 years)." that reads like they have been around for a long time (at least 20 years) before phones had the capability and they have been around closer to 30 years rather than only 20, I've had my first digital camera like 24-25 years ago and was pretty poor back then, so even poor people could afford it, for middle class it would be more like 30 years ago almost

lazide 2mo ago

Kinda - it used to be the reach of vacation photos was relatively limited, so the degree of aggressiveness was also relatively limited. Going literally to just get photos was also somewhat limited, because who would be crazy enough to go just to get photos for a few friends and acquaintances and never even attempt to enjoy it? A limited number of people. Social media has really amped it up, including the competitive aspect of it, and the number of people trying to be professional at it.

koliber 2mo ago
National Geographic and BBC would send photographers to a place for the sole purpose of taking a photo. Regular people did not do that.
- riffraff 2mo ago
  I think TFA does not make this very clear, but it really depends on what "tourist site" is. In the past nobody went to London to take a picture of a phone booth, but you did take a picture of a phone booth anyway. You'd go to the Horse Guards spot to take a picture, not to enjoy the horses. In this sense, regular people do visit a spot just to take a picture, and have always done that.
Aurornis 2mo ago
> and never even attempt to enjoy it? They are enjoying it. They're enjoying it in their own way, and I think there's nothing wrong with that. I did a little bit of travel when I was young before smartphones were everywhere. There were definitely tourists going to spots to take a picture and then leaving.
- lazide 2mo ago
  The folks I’m talking about would literally never go if it wasn’t for a photo op (not taking pictures, but GOING TO TAKE A SPECIFIC PICTURE OF THEM THERE.). It’s literally like a job to them. You can tell when you watch them. They aren’t going to see a thing and take pictures. they are going to be have pictures of them being there, specifically, to screw with people back home. I do think there is something wrong with that.

koliber 2mo ago

People take photos for multiple reasons. I like the memories. I enjoy looking through a photo album many years down the line and reminiscing about a great trip. People take photos to brag. People take photos to prove to non-believers that something happened. People take photos to capture beauty. People used to take photos and people continue to take photos. I suspect the reason has changed.

dylan604 2mo ago
People used get together to show their vacations as slide shows with a projector to family and friends and make a "party" out of it. If they were really fancy, they might have even had 8mm motion film to show. It always felt really strange to me then as a bit of bragging and showing off. I was told it was a bit of living vicariously through other's adventures, but it just felt weird to me. Maybe that's why watching other people on social media gives me the same creepy vibe.
- koliber 2mo ago
  If I read the stats in the original article correctly, you and I are in the 1/5th of the population that feels this way about it.

gherkinnn 2mo ago

Look at it this way: would those four out of ten people have visited those places if they weren't allowed to take any photos or videos? And how many would do a thing if they weren't allowed to tell anyone afterwards?

madaxe_again 2mo ago

Tell me you’re Gen Z without telling me you’re Gen Z. No, it was not always thus. People would take a camera or a disposable camera, sure, but it wasn’t the focus - it was “oh we should grab a photo for aunt Mabel”. And you’d have 30 shots. For the entire trip.