I was thinking about this just last night, as a matter of
fact, and some of your posts came to mind.
1) the world is moving at a much faster pace now.
2) the world now moves much too fast for film.
3) People tend to emulate or aspire to those whom they
perceive as more technologically advanced. These days, that
includes newspaper photographers, etc. Immediacy is
the issue, whether we need it or not.
4) Nobody needs to learn anything any more, and nobody takes
time to 'learn' a craft, instant gratification is the norm, from sex
to photography - hope you don't have daughters. I do.
Therefore, digital with its instant
feedback/reinforcement/gratification/'got it right' is now the
standard.
5) People now have much higher income relative to the cost of
goods than they used to. Back in the '50's, people held onto
their cameras because the camera was
'expensive'.
Today, people's income exceeds the amount they need to live by so
much that they can afford to spend any reasonable amount on whatever
they want, me excluded.
Look at this way. Right now and for a large part of your life,
you have had to pinch pennies, we have too.
When we 'inherit', well, our wives inherit (thank goodness
we married well), we will not have to pinch pennies quite so
hard, but we will still do it.
Doctors, lawyers, etc, including most of my friends, are not so
strapped as we are, so they can afford new cars,
etc., anytime they want, more for less. I have had
2 cars in the last 25 years. I don't mind, just keep
them running until they rust out. but except for rust, the
cars are in pretty good shape, normal wear an tear excluded. I
take care of my shit, so do you. My son doesn't. I
hate it. He should, he has no money.
But we are the exception, even among our age groups. We are
poor, by today's standards, but rich by our parent's
standards.
Money means very little, there is always more shit to buy, the
digital cameras are a symptom of this degree of luxury. Why am
I a Democrat?
That's your answer.
Roger ( camera store owner )
