In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
Skills can be become outdated, and no longer needed. Sometimes a
skill can be used in different ways and still serve a purpose even
when something replaces the major usage of the skill.

Lots of skills have fallen away from photography, developing film,
light metering, manual focusing just to name a few. With new tools
that replace or do these things for you and with a better end
result, the skill is obsolete.

That - developing film - is getting close to the heart of my
question. There are film shooters around who develop their own film.
That means of producing a photograph is obsolete when you use the
"outmoded" definition of "obsolete".

Just as there will be people that use older techniques to edit images in the
future as well. Film shooters today are scarce at best

Then why do they do it? The finished product is not going to
available quicker, it's not going to be a better finished product,
and it requires chemicals and equipment.

As a hobby, for nostalgic reasons, or they like the handiwork really. Just
like some people build their own kitchen tables instead of buying them from
IKEA.

The answer has to be "pride of accomplishment" or something of that
nature. The quick and easy route of digital photography doesn't
appeal to them. They like working with the skills they've developed
(!) over the years.

Of course, but there is a difference between building your own table or
developing your film versus using a light meter or copying and pasting image
region and meticulously editing it to fit.

For developing film, there is no automatic process that does it for you - at
least not available for home use. So if you ave a developed photograph,
there is only one way you could have arrived at that.

When you meticulously use your editing skill to edit a photograph and the
end result is worse than what could be done with the click of a button, I
don't really think there is a sense of pride in that.

Now, if your manual workflow - while harder and slower - produces a *better*
result than the automated one, then there is a different story. When someone
tries to replicate your manual work with an automated function and it turns
out worse, then there is still "pride" to feel for that manual workflow. But
there are so many areas of image editing where the automated functions
produce way better result than the older manual ones.

Sandman:
So the question is - if the end result is better and more
importantly; faster and more efficient, is there any value to the
skill in itself, or was it just needed because there was no better
way to do it before?

Yeah, I'd say there is a "value" to some obsolete skills. Personal
satisfaction counts as a value in my mind.

Sure, but most skills are acquired to be used professionally, and an
employer that sees you using outdated, slow and inefficient methods will not
be pleased. Or rather, an employer that sees a younger less skilled person
getting things done faster and with a better end result - then that personal
satisfaction isn't worth much.

--
Sandman