Would those from the days of film only cameras be able to comment on whether or not the skill level of photographers would have been considered higher back then, compared with now where prosumer cameras are so accessible?
Way higher, in the sense of knowledge (rather than skill)
When I started out there were very few cameras that had a built-in light meter, and those that did exist were poor to say the least. Same goes for rangefinders, clip-on ones were available but were poor. Hand-held light meters were available, but very expensive, mostly we used educated guesswork, which (even with black and white) required a combination of luck and skill, and with transparency film, mainly Kodachrome, exposure lattitude was very limited. And the technology that did exist was mainly on 35mm cameras, most serious photographers used medium and large format, and although some MF cameras did have a bit of basic technology - mainly Rollie and Mamiya, they were incredibly expensive and were pretty much limited to pros because of that.
And here's a simple but obvious example. When using flash we had to estimate the flash to subject distance accurately to work out the required aperture, this was a pretty basic skill but an essential one.
And then there was the cost factor, we can now set our cameras to bracket exposure automatically if we want to, back then not only did we not have that technology, we also had to pay to take extra shots, so we didn't. That applied to pro photographers as well as to amateurs; my first boss sacked people who wasted shots, so much so that we all clubbed together to buy extra film so that we could hide the odd mistake.
And, when it came to large format, the knowledge level had to be in a different class entirely, almost all shots required a good understanding of the Scheimflug principle, and even viewing a dark, upside-down and reversed image on a ground-glass screen required a level of skill . . .
But, an unintended consequence of these challenges is that we all lived by the maxim "measure twice cut once", and thought about every shot and didn't just waste our time and money taking shots that weren't worth the effort. And, in order to concentrate on the shot itself, we had to both understand the physics and camera settings to the point that we could operate the camera without any conscious thought process . . .
And this cut-down explanation doesn't even include developing and printing. Back then, nearly all serious photographers did it themselves, and this required both a lot of skill and knowledge, as well as care. We might say that Photoshop has replaced those skills, as well as enormously expanding the possibilities, but it isn't the same, mistakes can be corrected. I still have an old film camera and I keep meaning to use it but don't, although I greatly respect those who do. I think that my main reason for not shooting on film is that I no longer have the space to do my own printing
