If digital didn’t happen would you be as involved using film?
This is a question I got from Pinoy Photography website.
Answer: Well, I started to learn casual photography through digital, because I was really curious about just looking at the screen versus looking at the viewfinder. I was actually against film because I always find it to be “old school,” and with that, digital photography is more personalized since a person could manipulate the settings via easier DIY-style without being too dependent on the automatic settings. Also, it’s also an advantage NOT to limit yourself to just 36 shots alone–during the time when digital photography is on the rise, memory cards are also being available but these were considered as luxury items rather than a basic necessity. The only memory I had when using film photography is during our fifth grade field trip–GAH! I have killed all these 36 loads of film so I was hesitating whether I’ll get a new roll or not. Too bad, that’s it.
Starting 2010, the emergence of digital photography started when Digital SLR cameras started to lean from the business market towards the mainstream market. Almost everyone could make photography as a hobby rather than as a career–as a matter of fact, I badly missed the part when film photography was still very popular before the digital age almost halted film photography’s popularity. Therefore, I did not even grasp the chance to learn film photography myself.
If digital did not exist (or still remained in the luxury/business/enterprise market), well, I’d still use this good ol’ Konica Centuria 20 film cam and just had myself one PRO pack of Velvia 50/100 135 film/s. That way, I would have embraced lomography after.