Evolution of Photography; Sad But True

Jun 12, 2015

Liron Samuels

Liron Samuels is a wildlife and commercial photographer based in Israel. When he isn’t waking up at 4am to take photos of nature, he stays awake until 4am taking photos of the night skies or time lapses. You can see more of his work on his website or follow him on Facebook.

Evolution of Photography; Sad But True

Jun 12, 2015

Liron Samuels

Liron Samuels is a wildlife and commercial photographer based in Israel. When he isn’t waking up at 4am to take photos of nature, he stays awake until 4am taking photos of the night skies or time lapses. You can see more of his work on his website or follow him on Facebook.

Join the Discussion

Share on:

evolution_photography

Ask someone who worked as a professional photographer what he dislikes most about photography today, and there’s a pretty good chance he’ll say something about how many people take photos today almost as an afterthought.

You’d never hear someone saying “I’ll just fix that later in Photoshop” (though photographers were ‘shopping even before Photoshop), and each click was respected; it was intended to become a keeper.

Being limited by the number of exposures on each roll of film you could literally put a price tag of each press of the shutter, but today, with 512GB memory cards and virtually free and unlimited exposures, this is far from being the case.

Photographer Mason Resnick pretty much summed it up in the above image.

“In my ongoing office cleaning efforts this week I found a roll of 120 film in its original, never-opened box, from the 1950s, and a metal film canister that once held a roll of 35mm film. While I was looking at them and marveling about how old they were, an SD card caught my eye”, Mason wrote.

So he decided to have fun with his antique findings and created the image above, hoping it would go viral, but maybe also sending a gentle message to the young, trigger-happy photographers out there.

For those who missed it, we recently shared a humorous infographic comparing analog and digital photography, and how the latter changed the way we take photos.

[Mason Resnick via PetaPixel]

Filed Under:

Tagged With:

Find this interesting? Share it with your friends!

Liron Samuels

Liron Samuels

Liron Samuels is a wildlife and commercial photographer based in Israel. When he isn’t waking up at 4am to take photos of nature, he stays awake until 4am taking photos of the night skies or time lapses. You can see more of his work on his website or follow him on Facebook.

Join the Discussion

DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

16 responses to “Evolution of Photography; Sad But True”

  1. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    Another one of those: “back in the day of film everything was better” posts.. I wonder why they all switched to digital in the first place.

    Besides the sarcasm, if you are a protog and you need 2000 photos to get 6 awesome ones you are a crap photographer and incredibly inefficient. Face it, the digital/analog thing has nothing to do with that.

    Do digital photographers take more images? Yes! Would analog photographers have done the same (ie take more risky shots) if film costs wouldn’t be an issue? Hell yes.

    So what does your comparison really tell us? Nothing.

    End of rant. (Sorry but the whole film-whining gets to me. I love film, but keep it real guys)

    1. Bobberry Avatar
      Bobberry

      Photographers that had deep pockets (like National Geographic nature photogs) used to shoot thousands and thousands of pictures for half a dozen images published. So yeah, this “oh this is so sad” is infuriating and BS.

    2. JimCracky Avatar
      JimCracky

      Sometimes you need 2000 images to get “the great one”. Digital doesn’t change that.

  2. Bob Rider Avatar
    Bob Rider

    Still shooting all three formats! #filmphotography #picturemakerguy

  3. Dave Neal Avatar
    Dave Neal

    = regression of the photographer!!?? … the total care taken is about the same to fill each of those media.
    Hopefully, DIYPhotography is helping redress that :)

  4. Ken Tam Avatar
    Ken Tam

    I don’t click too much with my well planned photography session, except wild life… Maybe just use 1-2G card can help haha (transfer and edit is time consuming man)

  5. Shachar Weis Avatar
    Shachar Weis

    This is BS. National Geographic photographers used to take thousands of pictures on film for 6 good ones. Now everyone can do the same, so it’s “SAD”?

  6. Pieter Avatar
    Pieter

    Who care how many photos you need to take to make one awesome photo. I’m sure the best photographers in the world have some shitty photos in some ancient forgotten hidey-hole. Let’s celebrate successes instead of shooting down the creative process.

    There are many well known photographers and photography blogs writing about this topic. I’d be happy if 10% of my photos were good enough to archive, and of that 10%, I’d be pleased if 10% was good enough to share with others. And of that 10%, I’d be delighted of 10% was good enough (in my eyes) to print. For those of you keeping score, that’s one in a thousand. And I can bet you there are many people out there who feel the same way.

    This kind of drivel, and other recent DIYP articles, is why I’m losing interest and patience with this blog. What happened to the real articles about DO IT YOURSELF PHOTOGRAPHY!? Why do we need articles about HTC press photos taken with iPhones? Who cares?

    I’ll stick with Mike Johnston and TOP, thank you very much,

  7. Andrew Ridgway Avatar
    Andrew Ridgway

    More bs from diyp, the cost of taking shots have tumbled, so you don’t need deep pockets to be a pro, just imagination, artistry and skill.. How can that be sad

  8. mike Avatar
    mike

    Ahh, another “how dare amateurs even click the shutter release button” posts. So much for DIY Photography, right?

  9. Rob C Avatar
    Rob C

    Which old Adage fits best …

    A stitch in time …
    Waste not, …
    Monkey see, …
    or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law

    The only way your going to enjoy working with 2000 Shots is to overwrite some of them. IE: You go out for a shoot and the Weather improves significantly, so you pull that Card and reshoot as much as you can (important parts first); if you can use Shots / Footage from both Sets your really winning.

  10. Laura Mac Neil Avatar
    Laura Mac Neil

    I’m not even going to read this, there are more than enough people/babies/dogs/weddings for the booming industry. Some people can afford to pay $3000 and some can afford $75. Those who are at the lower end of the spectrum would have NEVER hired a “pro” back in the day because of the cost. This is getting old.

  11. Ray Foster Avatar
    Ray Foster

    Did not read the article either, and won’t waste my time doing so. The fact that so many parents can now afford to document the silly little moments in their kids’ lives is nothing to be sad about. Pros simply need to continue to step up their game in order to engage those who appreciate their artistry and can afford to indulge.

  12. Rajko Avatar
    Rajko

    so maybe will the photographers finally find out, that one successful picture is just “rule of caw” and what truly matters is the collection of author’s work. That distinguish artist from professional and amateur photographer. And it really doesn’t matter, weather it came from digital or analog origin, as it didn’t matter in last century,weather you did it analogue or daguerreotype.

  13. Tony Kyle Avatar
    Tony Kyle

    First, if you think DIYP is BS then why read or respond?

    I remember film. I remember the saying that film is cheap. Pros said that when things really mattered. But back then the price for entry was higher meaning not just equipment but knowledge. To that end, in situations where there are a lot of dynamics professionals went through a LOT of film. But professionals also knew how to setup and control light which allowed them to get in and out quickly for portraits of high ranking company officials without taking hundreds of shots.

    These days people put out the shingle who should not. I see crap day after day that I would be ashamed to pass off as “professional.” There are a lot of people charge horribly low prices because they do not understand what it takes to be profitable. They have other sources or means and photography then is a hobby they make a “little” money at but it does devalue the craft IMHO.

    Lastly, documenting the life of a family is precious and should always be encouraged. It would not be wise to compare National Geographic with a family documenting their children.

    I will say the DIYP’s opening paragraph is wrong. Not every shot was a keeper which is why people like Mary Ellen Mark took so many when covering a subject.

  14. Peter Lewicki Avatar
    Peter Lewicki

    I remember when I first switched to digital, I would take a number of shots, then stop and do something else, or walk away etc. I noticed after a while that I was subconsciously taking 36 photos at a time because that’s how my 36-exposure rolls of film programmed themselves into my brain. :)