if you woke up after a 200 year coma and were 18 ...

removed account4 · Nov 22, 2017

lets say you were born in like 1850 yeah i know it isn't 200 years
but still

lets say you were in a coma at the age of 18, so in 1868 you pulled a rip van winkle
and you woke up out of a coma like, today right now
and it was like you just woke up and there was no atrophy &c &C
so it was like you went to sleep and you woke up the next day ...
and lets say you had no trouble adapting to modern 1st world norms
so seeing women in "yoga pants" or "jeans" didn't freak you out and you
didn't die of a heart attack as soon as you woke up ...

if you were given film camera ( you were familiar with photography before you fell asleep )
and a digital or cellphone what would you use, a digital camera or something that uses chemicals, and why ?

faberryman · Nov 22, 2017

jnanian said:
lets say you were born in like 1850 yeah i know it isn't 200 years
but still

lets say you were in a coma at the age of 18, so in 1868 you pulled a rip van winkle
and you woke up out of a coma like, today right now
and it was like you just woke up and there was no atrophy &c &C
so it was like you went to sleep and you woke up the next day ...
and lets say you had no trouble adapting to modern 1st world norms
so seeing women in "yoga pants" or "jeans" didn't freak you out and you
didn't die of a heart attack as soon as you woke up ...

if you were given film camera ( you were familiar with photography before you fell asleep )
what would you use, a digital camera or something that uses chemicals, and why ?

Slow day around the house?

keenmaster486 · Nov 22, 2017

I think you would be exactly as likely to use a film camera as any random 18-year-old from today.

That is, you would have to make the same decision as anyone else as to whether or not to ditch digital in favor of film. And I don't think hailing from 1868 is going to change your chances of choosing film.

tedr1 · Nov 22, 2017

This question reminds me of a similar one that brings Mozart into the 1980s (when synthesizers were a new type of musical instrument) and asks would he use a synthesizer? There is a similar implication in both this and that proposition that there is something superior about the first iteration of a technology, and that the most recent iteration is automatically inferior. In this case film, in that case acoustic instruments. To prefer film when digital is available seems to me like preferring the horse drawn cart to the automobile. For me one of the chief advantages of digital is the elimination of the film processing time delay.

mshchem · Nov 22, 2017

jnanian said:
lets say you were born in like 1850 yeah i know it isn't 200 years
but still

lets say you were in a coma at the age of 18, so in 1868 you pulled a rip van winkle
and you woke up out of a coma like, today right now
and it was like you just woke up and there was no atrophy &c &C
so it was like you went to sleep and you woke up the next day ...
and lets say you had no trouble adapting to modern 1st world norms
so seeing women in "yoga pants" or "jeans" didn't freak you out and you
didn't die of a heart attack as soon as you woke up ...

if you were given film camera ( you were familiar with photography before you fell asleep )
what would you use, a digital camera or something that uses chemicals, and why ?

I would go back to 1949 and buy a chest full of REAL Kodachrome and assassinate Steve Jobs when he was a kid

From a 1868 view, never running out of film.................. Digital D5

keenmaster486 · Nov 22, 2017

Ah, but there's an idea. Might the time delay be considered desirable by this antiquated 18-year-old? Maybe he is depressed by the sudden acceleration of his life and wished to take it more slowly.

Luckless · Nov 22, 2017

Digital or both.

Nothing says you can't have more than one camera, and nothing says those cameras need to be of any given kind.

removed account4 · Nov 22, 2017

faberryman said:
Slow day around the house?

naaah not slow but thinking about bill and ted

BrianShaw · Nov 22, 2017

I’ve wondered similar things but never seem to know what I would think or do.

In general I try to go with the flow. Not easy at times but that’s what I’d probably do.

But at 18 there were only a few things I was really interested in so I’d probably flirt with a girl, look for some food, and try to soup up a horse-drawn buggy. In that order. Cameras and photography wouldn’t even be of interest.

Eric Rose · Nov 22, 2017

Depends on what my motivation to use a camera was before I fell asleep. If I was shooting portraits I would now go for a digi cam. If just for personal use to document my life, a cellphone.

If I were an artist then it's a toss up. I would probably be all enthused about how convenient a digi slr and inkjet or photolab prints are so would go for that.

Helios 1984 · Nov 22, 2017

A digital would requires to understand how to use a computer, analogue would be way more easier to understand from scratch.

I'd be doing street photography with a Spotmatic, from the back of a horse. No way I'll get aboard one of your stinky horseless carriage!

Theo Sulphate · Nov 22, 2017

tedr1 said:
...There is a similar implication in both this and that proposition that there is something superior about the first iteration of a technology, and that the most recent iteration is automatically inferior.

I see film and digital being two separate technologies, not one (digital) being a more advanced iteration of the other (film).

Advancements in both film and digital technologies have advanced independently over the last 20 years.

tedr1 said:
... To prefer film when digital is available seems to me like preferring the horse drawn cart to the automobile. For me one of the chief advantages of digital is the elimination of the film processing time delay.

That is totally subjective. Many prefer film for many reasons and do not see the digital image as being superior at all. Although I use digital cameras, the immediacy of getting the image is of no importance whatsoever. Likewise, with film, the delay between tripping the shutter and getting the negative (or print) is of no consequence. Again, totally subjective.

wiltw · Nov 22, 2017

Born in 1850, I would have no idea how to begin to use a PC (for post processing, much less anything else like web surfing to learn to do post processing), so I would choose a film camera because it is like the daguerreotype which was invented in 1839. And although I went into suspended animation in 1868, the f/stop concept had already been invented a year earlier.

Helios 1984 · Nov 22, 2017

tedr1 said:
To prefer film when digital is available seems to me like preferring the horse drawn cart to the automobile. For me one of the chief advantages of digital is the elimination of the film processing time delay.

I miss APUG already

Down Under · Nov 22, 2017

I would still want a Rolleiflex TLR. And Kodak Panatomic-X.

I have four of the former (also a Rolleicord) so am well set for this life. Also 100+ rolls (mostly 120) left of the latter. Which may, with luck and careful shooting, see me out.

Being now too old to go around lugging my 5x7 Home Portrait Graflex, I realise and have accepted that like wiltw (#14), I too went into a sort of cultural induced coma, in my case in 1975. Until 2010, when I awoke long enough to buy a Nikon D90, then a D700. So yes, each medium has its place. Different strokes for different folks, as we used to say in high school, a few centuries ago.

Quiet days are great for fun threads. At least not of the "what is a filter?" sort.

Helios84 (#15), I agree +100! Digital may someday be recognised for what it is, one of the scourges of the 21st century and a major blow to photography as a respected visual art.

But then many said this about the Benz horseless carriage and the Berliner talking machine...

Ko.Fe. · Nov 22, 2017

Mobile. To watch them without yoga pants.

MattKing · Nov 23, 2017

If I had spent 200 years in a coma as an 18 year old, and then woke up, I would probably be thinking more about women/girls than cameras.

Andrew O'Neill · Nov 23, 2017

MattKing said:
If I had spent 200 years in a coma as an 18 year old, and then woke up, I would probably be thinking more about women/girls than cameras.

+1!!

mooseontheloose · Nov 23, 2017

Well, film wasn't invented until the 1880s, so probably photography was seen as cumbersome and/or expensive to most people in 1868 when glass plates were still in use. I would imagine that digital would have more of an appeal, since it would seem so easy and accessible (and probably because that's what all the kids today are using). Would you want to go back to cast iron stoves for cooking, hand washing your clothes, or having no electricity in the home? I worked in a museum set in the 1860s and did the activities people used to do back then as part of my job, and I can tell you it was not an easy life (unless you were super rich).

Billy Axeman · Nov 23, 2017

jnanian said:
lets say you were born in like 1850 yeah i know it isn't 200 years
but still

lets say you were in a coma at the age of 18, so in 1868 you pulled a rip van winkle
and you woke up out of a coma like, today right now
and it was like you just woke up and there was no atrophy &c &C
so it was like you went to sleep and you woke up the next day ...
and lets say you had no trouble adapting to modern 1st world norms
so seeing women in "yoga pants" or "jeans" didn't freak you out and you
didn't die of a heart attack as soon as you woke up ...

if you were given film camera ( you were familiar with photography before you fell asleep )
and a digital or cellphone what would you use, a digital camera or something that uses chemicals, and why ?

I like your prose and imagination above all else.

Paul Manuell · Nov 23, 2017

tedr1 said:
This question reminds me of a similar one that brings Mozart into the 1980s (when synthesizers were a new type of musical instrument) and asks would he use a synthesizer? There is a similar implication in both this and that proposition that there is something superior about the first iteration of a technology, and that the most recent iteration is automatically inferior. In this case film, in that case acoustic instruments. To prefer film when digital is available seems to me like preferring the horse drawn cart to the automobile. For me one of the chief advantages of digital is the elimination of the film processing time delay.

But I've never used digital, preferring to stay with film ever since I started photography in the 80s (the 1980s that is, not the 1880s), and yet as a mode of transport I choose an automobile over a horse drawn cart any day of the week. As you say in the USA, go figure!

Patrick Robert James · Nov 23, 2017

I'd imagine I'd use the digital camera 'cause it was new, but after a while I would get sick of staring at the computer and go back to film.....

Maris · Nov 23, 2017

If I wanted to make pictures that supported the reasons why the invention of photography was so cherished, so desired, I'd find no use in digital technology.

Making pictures out of light-sensitive materials is, these days, a minority activity that continues to celebrate why the discovery of photography was so stunning in the first half of the nineteenth century. It certainly wasn't because photography generated highly detailed pictures of plausible worlds. Ernest Meissonier was already producing huge paintings full of micro-detail. Durer as early as the 16th century made steel engravings that required a magnifying glass to see all that was in them. No, the impact of photography lay in its power to make pictures directly without the filter of the artist's eye, mind, and hand.

Before "photography" two early names for the process were Physautotype - literally copy by nature herself, and Phusalethotype - literally true copy from nature. Those curious terms still fit well with photography, as such, even these days. By contrast modern digital picture-making methods can't, even in principle, generate Physautotypes and Phusalethotypes. By the time a megapixel sensor has smashed an optical image into particles of information "nature herself" has left the scene. When these bits and bytes are churned arbitrarily in a computer the concept of "true copy" need not apply. And finally when a robot painter spits ink on paper (or a monitor displays dots of light) and assembles a picture the link to nature can be completely optional, arbitrary, or absent.

Way down in the engine room of basic principles modern digital techniques are no more than good ol' painting and drawing updated with new robot-assisted methods and tools. One can admire paintings, drawings, and digi-graphs but none of these media guarantee what is depicted is true in the sense that points in the picture have an obligatory one-to-one correspondence to points in the subject matter. Sure, the picture maker can claim truthfulness and we can choose to believe them but we can't use the picture to test their claim.

So, for me, it's Physautotypes, Phusalethotypes, photographs in other words...always.

TheRook · Nov 23, 2017

Based on my 19th century photography experiences, the film camera would be more familiar and comprehensible to me, so I think I'd opt for the film camera rather than the digital camera.

MattKing · Nov 23, 2017

John:
Were you watching this scene when you thought of this thread:

if you woke up after a 200 year coma and were 18 ...

removed account4

faberryman

keenmaster486

tedr1

mshchem

keenmaster486

Luckless

removed account4

BrianShaw

Eric Rose

Helios 1984

Theo Sulphate

wiltw

Helios 1984

Down Under

Ko.Fe.

MattKing

Moderator

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

mooseontheloose

Billy Axeman

Paul Manuell

Patrick Robert James

Maris

TheRook

MattKing

Moderator

if you woke up after a 200 year coma and were 18 ...

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency