It is all very different.

**Mallee Boy** · 12-27-2006, 09:44 PM

Talking to someone earlier who commented that they had given a young child a P&S camera for Christmas and the child had rattled off 800 shots in three days. (thats a lot of downloading for dad)!!

This got me thinking back to when I was a kid (I'm 54 now). Man...if I even got close to dad's Yashica I was sternly warned to be very careful, if I wanted to see the next sunrise. Actually taking a shot with it was a privelege only afforded my much older sister or mum for a particular event. The thought of wandering off taking photos for no reason than just to take photos was...well...it just wasn't done in our house.

The thought of me having my own camera was just not even contemplated, the film processing costs alone were prohibitive to my income capacity back then, and even for a good number of years through my teens. So you took photos very carefully and judiciously.

So how wonderful is it to hear of little tackers having their own cameras at 5 or 6 years old and embarking on the journey of digital photography.

Imagine what these kids will be turning out in their teens as old pro's of the digital world. I think its great.

It would be interesting to see some of these kids shots to see how they view things through the lens. Obviously a decision for the parents.

Yes, it is VERY different, and it IS for the better.
Cheers & a very happy New Year to you all.
Grant

Photo Tramp · 12-28-2006, 05:14 AM

Hi Grant,
I have to agree with you on this whole thread. Back in the film days the expense would kill you unless you had your own dark room. (but who would ever trust as 5-6 year old with those chemicals) Now a days it is so great to be able to give a child of that age the experience of photography. And I know when my Grandson reaches that age I will be giving him his first camera. His mom I know will be thrilled if this child were to shot 800 shots a day. She is always very parent child oriented. The fact that she too is a photographer and does portrait work will be good for a positive child growth. I won't mind processing his shots and I know she will also love doing this for him. (or teaching him to do it him self on his own computer.) At present he is satisfied to ham it up on the other side of the camera, but he is starting to want to see threw the camera and comments saying pretty. but he's only 15 months old.

Good training by the parents and being shown the world from the eyes of a child will be fantastic.

Good Shooting.
Cheers: David

Ivan Glisin · 12-28-2006, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by GWP

Talking to someone earlier who commented that they had given a young child a P&S camera for Christmas and the child had rattled off 800 shots in three days. (thats a lot of downloading for dad)!!
[...]
Imagine what these kids will be turning out in their teens as old pro's of the digital world. I think its great.

Although I am welcoming all the benefits of the access to advanced and cheep technology that can be used for creative work by young people, quality results are not guaranteed: that kid could have snapped 800 shots repeating the same mistake 800 times in three days and learning to do certain things completely wrong for life!

Simply put, quantity does not imply quality. One has still to learn the basics and think about their (thousands of) photographs in order to learn and improve in the future. How many people are doing that really taking advantage of practically zero operating cost of digital cameras? Based on the results we see on photo hosting sites, very, very few.

**Mallee Boy** · 12-28-2006, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by i.glisin

Although I am welcoming all the benefits of the access to advanced and cheep technology that can be used for creative work by young people, quality results are not guaranteed: that kid could have snapped 800 shots repeating the same mistake 800 times in three days and learning to do certain things completely wrong for life!

Simply put, quantity does not imply quality. One has still to learn the basics and think about their (thousands of) photographs in order to learn and improve in the future. How many people are doing that really taking advantage of practically zero operating cost of digital cameras? Based on the results we see on photo hosting sites, very, very few.

Sure. But, the chances of parental/grand parental participation is a lot higher today than it was 'yesterday' due to the wider acceptance and availability of digital photography.

I think the future is pretty exciting really.
Grant

Photodan · 12-28-2006, 03:05 PM

Very interesting thread. My first reaction, I'm ashamed to say, was "That's ridiculous! Why in my day.....!"

Then I remembered. When I was ten, in 1947, I got a Brownie camera for Christmas and I promptly won a Washington Post newspaper photo contest. At that age it was the thrill of my life. Of course, neither I or my parents could afford much film at the time and so the "hobby" quickly disappeared.

I can only imagine how it would have been if there had been digital cameras back then. I'd have been snapping away all day, every day, essentially for free.

It's a great idea and, if the kid has any inclination toward serious photography or art we'll be looking at some real masters down the road.

Thanks for helping me remember what it was like to be a kid with a camera.

Dan

12-27-2006, 09:44 PM	#1
Mallee Boy Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,904	It is all very different. Talking to someone earlier who commented that they had given a young child a P&S camera for Christmas and the child had rattled off 800 shots in three days. (thats a lot of downloading for dad)!! This got me thinking back to when I was a kid (I'm 54 now). Man...if I even got close to dad's Yashica I was sternly warned to be very careful, if I wanted to see the next sunrise. Actually taking a shot with it was a privelege only afforded my much older sister or mum for a particular event. The thought of wandering off taking photos for no reason than just to take photos was...well...it just wasn't done in our house. The thought of me having my own camera was just not even contemplated, the film processing costs alone were prohibitive to my income capacity back then, and even for a good number of years through my teens. So you took photos very carefully and judiciously. So how wonderful is it to hear of little tackers having their own cameras at 5 or 6 years old and embarking on the journey of digital photography. Imagine what these kids will be turning out in their teens as old pro's of the digital world. I think its great. It would be interesting to see some of these kids shots to see how they view things through the lens. Obviously a decision for the parents. Yes, it is VERY different, and it IS for the better. Cheers & a very happy New Year to you all. Grant

12-28-2006, 12:27 PM	#3
Ivan Glisin Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Belgrade Posts: 656	There is a downside though Originally posted by GWP Talking to someone earlier who commented that they had given a young child a P&S camera for Christmas and the child had rattled off 800 shots in three days. (thats a lot of downloading for dad)!! [...] Imagine what these kids will be turning out in their teens as old pro's of the digital world. I think its great. Although I am welcoming all the benefits of the access to advanced and cheep technology that can be used for creative work by young people, quality results are not guaranteed: that kid could have snapped 800 shots repeating the same mistake 800 times in three days and learning to do certain things completely wrong for life! Simply put, quantity does not imply quality. One has still to learn the basics and think about their (thousands of) photographs in order to learn and improve in the future. How many people are doing that really taking advantage of practically zero operating cost of digital cameras? Based on the results we see on photo hosting sites, very, very few.

12-28-2006, 05:14 AM	#2
Photo Tramp Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Lancaster, PA. Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,041	Hi Grant, I have to agree with you on this whole thread. Back in the film days the expense would kill you unless you had your own dark room. (but who would ever trust as 5-6 year old with those chemicals) Now a days it is so great to be able to give a child of that age the experience of photography. And I know when my Grandson reaches that age I will be giving him his first camera. His mom I know will be thrilled if this child were to shot 800 shots a day. She is always very parent child oriented. The fact that she too is a photographer and does portrait work will be good for a positive child growth. I won't mind processing his shots and I know she will also love doing this for him. (or teaching him to do it him self on his own computer.) At present he is satisfied to ham it up on the other side of the camera, but he is starting to want to see threw the camera and comments saying pretty. but he's only 15 months old. Good training by the parents and being shown the world from the eyes of a child will be fantastic. Good Shooting. Cheers: David

12-28-2006, 02:26 PM	#4
Mallee Boy Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,904 Original Poster	Originally posted by i.glisin Although I am welcoming all the benefits of the access to advanced and cheep technology that can be used for creative work by young people, quality results are not guaranteed: that kid could have snapped 800 shots repeating the same mistake 800 times in three days and learning to do certain things completely wrong for life! Simply put, quantity does not imply quality. One has still to learn the basics and think about their (thousands of) photographs in order to learn and improve in the future. How many people are doing that really taking advantage of practically zero operating cost of digital cameras? Based on the results we see on photo hosting sites, very, very few. Sure. But, the chances of parental/grand parental participation is a lot higher today than it was 'yesterday' due to the wider acceptance and availability of digital photography. I think the future is pretty exciting really. Grant

12-28-2006, 03:05 PM	#5
Photodan Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 157	Very interesting thread. My first reaction, I'm ashamed to say, was "That's ridiculous! Why in my day.....!" Then I remembered. When I was ten, in 1947, I got a Brownie camera for Christmas and I promptly won a Washington Post newspaper photo contest. At that age it was the thrill of my life. Of course, neither I or my parents could afford much film at the time and so the "hobby" quickly disappeared. I can only imagine how it would have been if there had been digital cameras back then. I'd have been snapping away all day, every day, essentially for free. It's a great idea and, if the kid has any inclination toward serious photography or art we'll be looking at some real masters down the road. Thanks for helping me remember what it was like to be a kid with a camera. Dan