So, he's the enemy – get him! No, just kidding. This portrait series is pretty interesting and we can't argue on the impact of digital photography, be it for the good or bad.
Shot by David Friedman. The camera was created in 1975 by Steve Sasson, an engineer at Eastman Kodak, weighted around 8 pounds and recorded 0.01 megapixel black and white photos. I just like how vintage this thing looks, that it gets loaded with (digital) cassettes, how long it took for photos to be saved, his remark that he’s sitting in the pixel chair… But specially love this quote:
It took about 23 seconds to record and the tape would hold 30 images. A number I chose by the way to be conveniently between 24 and 36. I didn’t want to just store one or two images on there, because then they’d say “well, that’s not very useful”. I didn’t wanna store a hundred or a thousand images on there because nobody knew how to deal with that concept.
On the latter point: I still don’t. I tried digital, but this has always been one of the dealbreakers for me – I have no clue how to deal with this huge amount of photos. I like the limitations of analog photography.
Don’t want this to turn into a huge discussion about analog vs. digital, but what are your thoughts on this aspect: the amount of photos you get from a roll. If for the same money you’d get – let’s say – 200 shots per roll, would you go for it?