Prediction from 1972

<p>One of my favorite series of photography tomes, is the amazing TIME-LIFE books from the 70's. if you've never seen them. Anyone wishing to gain insight into photography, film or digital. Will benefit tremendously from these books. They can often be found in libraries , and I have many garage sale copies bought for .25c.</p>

<p>In the 1972 book "Frontiers of Photography". In the first chapter titled "Clues to the Future" ,they discuss the future and offer the following:</p>

<p><strong>"" The development of such methods, so far removed from traditional photography, that the <em>supercamera</em> of the future may not even use film as we know it. Conceivably the camera could contain a permanent sensitive plate that could record and erase images, the way a tape recorder does with sound. It might be loaded with plain paper. After exposure, prints could simply be pulled out.""</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

They got part of it right. Our digital cameras do not spit out prints, but we do print on plain paper, as apposed to light sensitive paper.</p>

<p>I remember the first time seeing a Xerox copier, "back in the day". My young brain always thought that one day they'll shrink the thing down. When I place my 1972 Nikkormat next to my D90, it's like a giant leap for mankind, or at least for the photo obsessed segments of it.</p>

They were just predicting the Kodak disc. :-)

<blockquote>

<p>When I place my 1972 Nikkormat next to my D90, it's like a giant leap for mankind, or at least for the photo obsessed segments of it.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why? Seems like incremental improvement to me. Really. Not a 'versus' thing. When I look through the viewfinder of my F3 or my D300, I see the same thing. Both have a medium capable of recording the scene. </p>

<p>Steve, I've never seen those books. But, I have recently inherited a complete collection of TIME-LIFE books about WWII which are sensational. I only wish they were the photography collection, from what you say. My Uncle lived in London during the war but moved to Canada in the '70s. Many from that time are trying to forget what they saw but he chose to not forget. I will look for the photography books in the future.</p>

<p>My Nikkormat, has as much to do with micro chips as a bowl of soup.</p>

<p>Yes they both take pictures. In 1972, the D90 was science fiction.</p>

<p>The digital age is a giant step for mankind relative to the analog age, IMO. Most people would say it is for the better. I am not that sure. But a giant step it is, indeed.</p>

<p>Books I lost and missed are, THE BEST OF LIFE and LIFE GOES TO MOVIES. Now I can't find LIFE SMILES BACK. Great books with very nice photographs, more all about being there, right time and right place..............</p>

<p>For some reason I just cannot warm to digital cameras. They engender in me the same feeling when using any common kitchen appliance. A can opener, a coffee maker, a plastoblob DSLR, it's all the same to me.</p>

<p>When however, I handle any of my marvelous metal mechanical manual cameras it feels like such a warm and comfortable place.</p>

<p>It is not logical. Perhaps it is a form of mental illness. If it is, I don't want to be cured.</p>

<p>+1 for the Time-Life Photography series. I bought mine about 20 years ago for $25. The volumes on the history are great.</p>

<p>Sure, portions will be obsolete if you don't shoot film; but even if you never shoot film or never go in a darkroom, you should have a basic understanding of the process. </p>

<p>Photography is more than megapixels. Those obsessed with the equipment will never be happy, while those that understand lighting, composition, and the history of photography will always be happy.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Isn't Polaroid's foray into the digital world ALMOST a "camera... [with] a permanent sensitive plate that could record and erase images, the way a tape recorder does with sound... [that] might be loaded with plain paper... [and from which] prints could simply be pulled out?" I think the only difference is that its printer is dye sub and not plain paper.</p>

Almost, yes.<br>The editors of these books saw digital cameras coming back in 1972. And they, of course, had it right. But to be fair, it was not all that bold a prediction. They weren't the only ones who saw something like that just on the horizon. And though it may seem a long time, it wasn't really not that long before the first attempts at electronic capture of still images were made available to the general public (not quite 10 years later).<br>Still, a good call.<br><br>And indeed very good books. A bit dated in appearance. And not the best print quality by today's standards. But highly enjoyable.