How many of us today would be enthusiastic photographers 100 years ago?

I ask because of reading, "Photographic Amusements, Including A Description of a Number of Novel Effects Obtainable with the Camera" by- Walter E. Woodbury, - Revised and Enlarged by Frank R. Fraprie-Ninth Edition- 1922  Copyright- 1896... and admit to a good bit of smugness when discussed is the hilarity of having the photographer- or others- appear to be shaking hands with themselves or flouting the laws of time and space. But, I also must allow a good bit of respect for these early shutterbugs given the difficulty of doing such things IN CAMERA!. Even a simple silhouette image becomes a major undertaking when background, reflectors- position of the window... lots of things must be considered...

There are fun things, too: "Photo in a Bottle" - that is, photographic emulsion being sloshed about to coat the interior of a bottle, letting it dry and taping a negative to the bottle's exterior then, heading into sunshine with a finger up the bottle's orifice so it can be turned for an even exposure. Simply pour developer, stop and fixer into the bottle for processing. And, "electric photographs" - various metal objects (coins a favorite) placed on a dry plate and passing a current "exposes" the silver halides without visible light..

One novelty offered is having an image of your favorite scenic, or perhaps Uncle Fred, that reveals itself only when its temperature reaches whatever temperature hog fat liquifies and turns transparent. I suppose, if the image was a bit risqué', it would be a hoot in some Wisconsin ice fishing shack. Regardless, instruction for making this delightful, "Disappearing Photograph" is provided and the materials list includes: white wax, hog lard, a strip of "gold beater's skin" and strong glue. Not mentioned is the point at which lard turns rancid... No doubt this novelty is best suited for cooler regions.

How 'bout "Post Mortem" photographs... First, have a negative of the departed one; either provided by the family or, taken yourself.  Then, mix together various amounts of, "... bichromate of ammonia, albumen, grape sugar, bichromate of potash, honey..." plus other ingredients which combined and gently heated over a spirit lamp, and, while still warm, is applied evenly to a glass plate, which, when dry, is ready to be exposed.  Place the glass plate and afore mentioned negative onto a printing frame and expose to the sun for two to five minutes.  Next, remove the negative and place the exposed plate in a dark, damp place to absorb moisture.   When the plate becomes tacky, evenly dust over it the cremated remains of the departed one (the guy in the negative)... which will, "  ... adhere to the parts unexposed to light, and a portrait is obtained composed entirely of the person it represents, or rather what is left of him." But wait! There's more!! "When fully developed the excess of powder is dusted off and the film coated with collodion.  It is then well washed to remove the bichromate salt.  The film can, if desired, be detached and transferred to ivory, wood, or any other support."  
For me... all I can imagine is something along the line of Elvis on black velvet...

So, again: Would you be a photographer 100 years ago?

Switching from film to digital is quite a thing.
I attended the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Art. Trained in anatomy and figure work. At the time I was also interned to a Large Format commercial photographer. I would go into factories with this man, and in stocking feet on an enormous white seamless backdrop would guide boilers and giant ship's equipment into position from a gantry crane. It took every bit of an hour just to set up one exposure. So yes, I would have been a photographer. I loved it! The man I interned under played golf with George Eastman - that's right! We were shooting 8x10 E6 transparencies in 1977. As well as other experimental films, papers, etc. long before they were available to not only the public,but other professional photographers.
I am now a wildlife photographer. I decided to make the digital conversion - when digital still sucked - about ten years ago. Digital has only recently become as good as film, and sometimes I think, it still sucks. About two years ago, I almost went back to film, and was making plans for a darkroom in my home (love cibachrome). Finally after exhaustive research (I had a really good mentor/teacher for Photoshop) and three cameras, I made a system brand change and went to Pentax. Now, I could not be more pleased.