Since I'm currently in Philadelphia for a big technology in education conference and I brought my Contax IIa, I thought I would mention my impression that there is a shared fear of irrelevance in today's world with respect to tech.
Typical argument would go like this: Would you get operated by a surgeon who was state-of-the-art in 1950, or by an average surgeon of today? The predictable answer is: an average joe from today since he has access to so much more drugs, technology, tools, science &c than the guy in the fifties. Now if you accept this, why do you accept to teach like it's still the 1950s? Ergo, you must embrace modern technology and integrate it in your teaching, otherwise you are forever hurting today's kids.
When you compare that to photography, you may not see the exact same argument, in the sense that no one will get "hurt" by shooting film, but you will find the same fear, in the sense that there is a strict, definite arrow of progress: before was lame, tomorrow is great. To think otherwise is blasphemous, end of discussion.
So it's no wonder that people are ashamed of shooting film. Even I felt kind of weird having all of these zealots around, as if I was a sleeper cell. The peer pressure is so great to "adapt or die" that it creates a sentiment of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. I probably shouldn't say as well that I shave with a straight razor and a badger brush?
If there is so much zealotry around computer technology, I think it's for the same reason there was so much zealotry around the steam engine at the turn of the 1800s: because it suddenly gives an advantage to certain people who did not have it before. Remember what society thought of geeks and nerds in the 80s? Compare it to now. Because people gain power, they can then further a world which is more and more dependent upon them. Excuse the naive historical analysis, but based on what I saw today, I could see people who have clearly succeeded to rise in prominence with the help of technology, and who are doing their best to ensure they stay there.
To go back to photography, the reason why there is shame is that you won't wield power over people with analog technology. What's worse, you'll look like one of the powerless: unable to be on the cutting edge.
But therein lies the fallacy: the real value of the cutting edge. All technologies embody values, not progress. Why do we have cars? Because we value speed. Is a car better than a horse? In terms of speed, yes, but not in terms of carbon footprint, manufacturing, and even cost. We live in a world where we believe that speed and convenience are the most important things, and that's why customers prefer digital, and that's perfectly logical.
Go back to health now, and compare two neighbouring countries, Canada and the USA. Which has the best medical technology, which is on the cutting edge of science, develops the most new drugs, has the most prestigious medical schools, the best doctors, and the rarest treatments that people all over the world vie for, and sometimes pay extravagant sums to undergo?
USA. (you may say it three times in a chorus, as is the custom...)
Yes, the USA has the best medicine, and is further on the arrow of progress. Canada, despite being one of the birthplaces of modern medicine (thank you Osler and McGill!), and no slouch either, would pale in comparison. We're behind with respect to research, quality of doctors (some of our best ones left for the USA anyway), etc.
But what was the point of medicine again? To die less. So who lives longest?
Canadians. About 10 years more. Because we have health insurance so we can afford to get treated earlier in the development of diseases.
It's not the technology, it's the purpose that should matter.
