I’m sure it’s not just me that is still wowed by touch-screen technology and who thinks that cameras on telephones are a novelty.
To the current generation of teenagers who know no different, taking pictures of yourself pouting in the mirror and then uploading said image to Facebook is par for the course.
In contrast there are very few pictures of me or my friends at high school or college because the generation which grew up in the late Eighties didn’t carry cameras around with them. Most of us didn’t have one.
If someone took a photograph there was generally a good reason for it. It was an occasion, an event, a gathering. It had a purpose.
Nowadays every oik with a mobile telephone can take a picture of his or her takeaway tea and display it to the world within seconds.
Don’t get me wrong, I am genuinely in awe of the fact that my six and eight-year-olds are able to use a mouse and navigate their way around an iMac screen and use the internet.
I can also, of course, see the huge benefits of hand-held devices which are part computer, part camera and part phone – even if they have killed the art of conversation for many.
Nowhere has the march of technology been more pronounced than with photography.
You used to walk in someone’s house and there would be the obligatory wedding picture in a frame – given pride of place – along with a few pictures of the kids, maybe a shot of grandad’s 70th birthday bash and a recently-departed pet dog.
Nowadays photo frames are electronic devices – winking at you from the mantelpiece or coffee table as they change from Christmas Day to last year’s holiday in Majorca.
Working in the media, of course, image technology has had a huge impact on the way some of my colleagues work.
I started as a cub reporter at Smith Davis Press in 1989 – the same year as Steve Bould began his career as a photographer at The Sentinel.
Now the most senior man on our picture desk, he’s one of the few photographers who recalls the momentous changes that have taken place over the last quarter of a century.
Back in the late Eighties, of course, cameras used rolls of film.
We would take our holiday snaps to a shop to be developed and every media organisation had its own dark room where a kind of a magic happened.
Even though I was a scribe, I spent many happy hours (though not as many as Steve) chatting away to colleagues under the eerie red light as negatives – or ‘negs’ – were developed (‘devved’).
I watched in awe as images materialised on prints in the trays.
It was a time-consuming process whereby the photographer didn’t really know just how successful or otherwise a particular shoot had been until he was able to view his or her negs back in the safety of the dark room.
In those early days I developed a healthy respect for ‘snappers’ (they hate being called that, by the way).
The importance to me of images chronicling everything from major events locally – from job losses, major crimes and football club successes – to the minutiae of people’s lives cannot be overstated.
That’s why I am so in awe of the treasure trove that is The Sentinel’s library and archive – with its row upon row of folders of prints, negatives and cuttings.
If a picture is worth a thousand words then this newspaper’s archive boasts billions.
It was, of course, the advent of digital cameras which ended the dark room’s domination and consigned camera films to the nostalgia pages.
In 1996 The Sentinel’s digital archive began and, to be fair, it’s a terrific, immediate resource.
When I began working as a journalist in the Eighties photographers, the vast majority of whom were men, at newspapers like The Sentinel would travel to just three or four jobs in a day – because they needed the rest of their shift to come back and ‘dev’ their work.
These days, photographers on your average regional daily newspaper will be expected to do six, seven or eight jobs in a day – often uploading the images to a laptop and emailing them back to HQ, thus removing any need for them to return to the office.
They may do more jobs but they also, of course, have the luxury of being able to view images as they take them – re-shooting if they are unhappy with the results.
Steve said: “I guess it’s swings and roundabouts. Photographers will do more jobs these days but the technology at their disposal is far superior to what was available 20-odd years ago.
“The job has changed. Some skills are no longer relevant.
“However, even though most people have devices which can take pictures these days it doesn’t mean the pictures they take are any good.
“Most people don’t have the technical ability to take a decent photograph or lack the courage to ‘get in there’ and get close enough to whatever is happening.
“Simply posing a group of people properly or creating an interesting image from a fairly dull subject matter – that’s a real skill.”
He’s not wrong. That’s why a good photographer is worth his or her weight in gold: Because they know a picture of a takeaway tikka masala isn’t that impressive after all.
Pick up a copy of The Weekend Sentinel every Saturday for 12 pages of nostalgia.