I honestly can't say if I agree with it or not. Article seemed to finish without any conclusion/resolution/climax... I kept scrolling to see if there was more u

I honestly can't say if I agree with it or not. Article seemed to finish without any conclusion/resolution/climax... I kept scrolling to see if there was more underneath the ads. Yes, people take more selfies and care about them more. Is it a purely technology driven change? Is it culture? Will it change again and how fast? Why is it? What is the impact? Not addressed. I'm not even 100% sure if the author IS truly lamenting the perceived disappearance of bad photos. That being said, my 2 cents; 1. Bad photos still abound. On my facebook feed at least :). They can be bad in many different ways - poor lighting, poor framing, awkward pose or expression, uninteresting subject, or any number of other perceived flaws. 2. There were always people who cared about photography (and took great photos in 70's 80's 90's etc), and those who didn't. Ratio may have changed. If more people care about photography and take great photos - not only of people as article focuses on, but also landscape and food and product and vacation and architecture... doesn't that just raise the standard and as a result we all get better photos to enjoy? If this is not a win, article doesn't discuss why. Nobody is stopping anybody, including author, from taking "bad" or "so bad they're good" or "brutally casual" photos to their heart's content; if the article is of the "I wish more people did things the way I want them to" / "Lamenting random thing of the past that's done less now" format, again, I'd like more depth to it to be interesting. Is there possibility people ARE taking and even cherishing such photos, just not sharing them? And if nobody is taking enjoying or sharing such photos, implying nobody wants to / cares, under what criteria is that a bad thing? :) 3. People will disagree what makes a "good photo". Today fashions are faster than ever. Posed, real casual, fake casual, real bad, fake bad, processed, unprocessed, seemingly unprocessed... all of these go in and out and have their own subcultures. In many ways, a posed 90's wedding photo, by today's standards, looks more awkward than 90's casual wedding photo. Whereas 2015 "casual wedding photo" was "faked" or rather arranged to one degree or another. Our very perception of "Casual look" has changed dramatically. If you want to future-proof, a lightly-processed, lightly-and-invisibly-arranged photo seems to stand test of time the best, i.e. classics seem to remain classics. 4. People have more choices to capture retain and view what they want; remember their own past or view others through whichever selective lens they want. Again, article doesn't even touch on any pros or cons. So I still feel like I've been bamboozled and am missing the significant half/conclusion of the article :D Edit; As for modern phones - most flagships now offer immediate one-click change of lighting, blurred background, skin-healing, even focal length adjustment so ears and nose don't look disproportionate. And even to this day, there are people who know to use their zoom lens for portraits and those who don't.