How do early and modern photos differ in the creative process of image production?

I smell homework. Early photography was very expensive. Almost no one could do it. Today it is mostly digital and is, by comparison, affordable. Many more people, absolutely and as a ratio, participate in it today.

Well, the trend has been for convenience over the quality of the photo. Daguerreotypes had a high resolution, and had a very cool look to them because they were made on a mirror so the light you saw was reflected back through the image giving it an almost holographic look. Recently most people have dropped slide film for print film and SLRs with prime lenses for cheap plastic point and shoot cameras. Then they went to digital (shudder). It's just sad because the slides your grandmother has in a shoebox made on Kodachrome II in 1973 have a higher resolution and quality than many cameras consumers pass off for being legitimate today. I've personally found digital so nauseating in it's characteristics especially in handling highlight colors that I've moved on to film. Wondrous isn't it? Kodak just came out with a brand new film last october called Ektar which, in 35mm size on your pentax k1000, will enlarge almost grain free to 11x14 producing nice vivid colors. Oh well, have fun with your Nikon Hooblahsnap 42 million digicam. I'm probably the only 16 year old around that enjoys the sweet smell of RA-4 color paper developer in the darkroom and the feel of crunchy flat black and white print fresh out of the print dryer. Oh well, a lost cause it seems...