The one industry truly killed off by digital photography.

[Village Idiot]

It could be faked with film as well.

A valid thought but what is the difference between a darkroom guru and a PS one?

But, one who spent hours in the darkroom, is now spending hours working in photoshop, and other editing programs. Either way, the process is still the same.

To me there are darkroom gurus, there are digital editing gurus, there are those who know dark room basics, and there are those who know digital editing basics.

Yes of course, every word of all that is true. However my point was never what was and wasn't possible by the gurus, or how hard it was. My point was the sheer number of gurus that now exist.

The only two people in my extended family that have (had) a darkroom was myself and my grandpa and out of us two I'm not a guru by any stretch and would find it very hard to fake a spaceship. Out of about 50 of my friends only 1 other person has a darkroom.

However the scene changes with photography. My father and my sister both have Photoshop Elements and know to use it rather well. My cousins are Open source nuts and GIMP gurus, If my grandpa was alive today I guarantee you he'd have photoshop too because he's a tinkerer. And out of the same selection of 50 friends I'd say half of them have something as capable as photoshop and a quarter of them are competent enough in it's use to fake an alien invasion.

The point is now "gurus" are so common place that you can't trust a single thing you see anymore. Nearly everyone does some form of photo manipulation in highschool for art / computer class.

So whereas 20 years ago the scene of a UFO in a photo would likely make you think if it was possibly real vs faked by a master of the darkroom, today any such image would instantly be met with "It looks shopped!"

How many people had an SLR back then as compared to how many people have DSLRs? How big of a ratio difference is it?

 

[Scatterbrained]

It could be faked with film as well.

To me there are darkroom gurus, there are digital editing gurus, there are those who know dark room basics, and there are those who know digital editing basics.

Yes of course, every word of all that is true. However my point was never what was and wasn't possible by the gurus, or how hard it was. My point was the sheer number of gurus that now exist.

The only two people in my extended family that have (had) a darkroom was myself and my grandpa and out of us two I'm not a guru by any stretch and would find it very hard to fake a spaceship. Out of about 50 of my friends only 1 other person has a darkroom.

However the scene changes with photography. My father and my sister both have Photoshop Elements and know to use it rather well. My cousins are Open source nuts and GIMP gurus, If my grandpa was alive today I guarantee you he'd have photoshop too because he's a tinkerer. And out of the same selection of 50 friends I'd say half of them have something as capable as photoshop and a quarter of them are competent enough in it's use to fake an alien invasion.

The point is now "gurus" are so common place that you can't trust a single thing you see anymore. Nearly everyone does some form of photo manipulation in highschool for art / computer class.

So whereas 20 years ago the scene of a UFO in a photo would likely make you think if it was possibly real vs faked by a master of the darkroom, today any such image would instantly be met with "It looks shopped!"

How many people had an SLR back then as compared to how many people have DSLRs? How big of a ratio difference is it?

There's a reason for that. DSLRs are easier to learn than an old SLR. Granted film camera were packed with tech towards the end but at one time you were essentially stuck with manual mode. Now anyone can buy a Rebel and put it in the green box mode and go. Meanwhile I know people who are PS wizards but only have a cheap P&S camera.