Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
Let's see..... The "new" system requires that you take huge quantitys of this film stuff that takes up large spaces in your bag, then makes you wait days if not weeks to see the results, once received you need to go to another expensive device to incorporate the images in your computer and at that destroys some of the quality of the image in so doing. What's not to like? S
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Regarding the histrionics of chemistry vs semiconductors, anyone in the semiconductor manufacturing business knows that it's all based on sophisticated chemistry and materials science. This is not a chicken-or-egg dilemma; clearly the one (chemistry) had to preceed the other (transistors). So that, while as a thought experiment it's fun to think about, in reality it is less certain how it informs our understanding of the history of photography.
~Joe
~Joe
TXForester
Well-known
You are thinking too much. Since it is a hypothetical situation, you can imagine that digital has been around a long time. Or, you imagine digital has only existed in the real time frame, but film was invented last year.
If the price for film, processing and printing was cheap enough, I think some people would take up film given the hypothetical situation. But, given our current environmental knowledge, I don't think many would take it up, even with a low price tag, unless it was more environmentally benign than digital. Digital isn't very environmentally friendly.
Mcary
Well-known
Ever since the camera obscura was invented around 470 to 390 BCE, people have been look for a way to capture and record what we now call photographs. The 1770's was probable around the time that the first photographs were created, which of course only lasted a few seconds as a way to fix them was still some time off.
denizg7
Well-known
Ah, I see... that's the key...fixed photos.