5 ms·
The survey result is 'nearly four in ten travellers (39%) say they have visited a tourist site mainly to take a photo or record a video.' You, I believe, are m
by eesmith 26d ago
The survey result is 'nearly four in ten travellers (39%) say they have visited a tourist site mainly to take a photo or record a video.'
You, I believe, are making a different observation, which is that taking a photo or recording a film has long been a component of many tourist trips. Which is of course true.
I'll add that likely more people would have done so had film and film development been a lot cheaper. We certainly did trips in the 1980s where we took no camera, or if we did, only a few pictures or perhaps a single roll.
- rhdunn 26d agoDigital cameras have existed before phones had the capability and have been around for a long time (at least 20 years). They made it a lot easier to take photos as you can take hundreds/thousands of photos and download them when you get home. When visiting places on holiday, I've taken my camera with me for the purpose of taking photos. I've also seen people with more expensive cameras (mainly larger lenses) camped out near puffins, on boat trips, etc. with the intention of getting a decent wildlife photo.
- eesmith 26d agoYes, photo safaris have been a thing since at least the 1960s, when it was all film cameras, and the term "shutterbugs" used since at least the 1940s. Indeed, now that you bring it up, I think a good interpretation of this survey is that more people now are doing photo safaris than they did some decades ago, where "safari" takes on a broader meaning tied to popular culture trends. It think it's like how many people go to the Louvre for the sole purpose of seeing (and photographing) the Mona Lisa, or (more distantly) the standard itinerary of the Grand Tour, both done because that's what everyone else (that they care about) thinks is the right or cool thing to do.
- Markoff 26d agonot really long time, certainly not 20 years, digital camera quality by the end of 90s was pretty bad (at least those for reasonable prices, bought my first by then) comparable with phone cameras by the end of 00s, where you had relatively decent Nokia Symbian phones, so the difference is like ~10 years, similar with social media (Facebook), which was becoming a thing by the end of 00s but I agree with overall sentiment digital cameras allowed basically unlimited number of photos compared to film cameras and were revolutionary in this aspect not being limited by expensive film rolls and related expenses
- rhdunn 26d ago20 years ago is 2006. I'm pretty sure I had a digital camera (DSLR) around that time with enough resolution (10 megapixels, IIRC) for decent photos. Wikipedia notes that the Canon EOS 1D Mark III [1] was released in 2007 with 10MP. According to wikipedia [2] the first consumer DSLR camera was in 2000. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-1D_Mark_III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-1D_Mark_III [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_single-lens_reflex_camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_single-lens_reflex_cam...
- Markoff 24d agothat's not what you wrote though "Digital cameras have existed before phones had the capability and have been around for a long time (at least 20 years)." that reads like they have been around for a long time (at least 20 years) before phones had the capability and they have been around closer to 30 years rather than only 20, I've had my first digital camera like 24-25 years ago and was pretty poor back then, so even poor people could afford it, for middle class it would be more like 30 years ago almost