photography
 

I blame the the influx of soccer mom van decal'ed "photograhers" out there.

I blame crappy porn :2 cents:

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh That too...

I would say this is spot on. Those who have never used film will not understand that more care was put into the shot before the trigger was pushed for the image.

The cost of film was not cheap and quality varied greatly. Kodak was not cheap. Cost money

Composition was better for one thing. It was not as easy to crop and manipulate the end result unless you have access to a darkroom to personally do so or were willing to explain what you wanted done to some who had. Cost money

You had to wait to get the film developed and most likely you paid an individual or company to do that for you. Printing is another step because until relatively recently photos were not viewed on screens but on paper. Cost money

Camera equipment was not cheap. It took a real financial investment in camera and equipment to get results. Mostly professionals. Cost money

So to sum up...each image used to take more time, effort, and money to produce. It was necessary to make each image count. Most of today's photographers with the instant access and a HD camera in your pocket will never understand what a true art form photography actually is. :2 cents:

yup.... started with film, learned on film, started shooting content on film...

It cost so much to develop them, too. I remember dropping off rolls of film and cringing every time I had to pay. Then I opened up the pack and they were all shit. The struggle was real.

oh yeah, just worth every second of it though for the knowledge and experience gained :2 cents:

hahaha, good one :P

These are the ratios that made me rich.