4 ms·

Smartphones only cheapened photography in an additional manner. Which is why you get Instagram filled with pictures of food. It's the internet combined with the

Smartphones only cheapened photography in an additional manner. Which is why you get Instagram filled with pictures of food. It's the internet combined with the nearly free cost of digital. But digital cameras for the everyday person existed long before the smartphone. And before that, point and shoot film cameras and Polaroid.

patmcc 3y ago
Smartphones changed access to cameras fundamentally; it went from something you had to specifically go buy to something you already have by default. Film to digital was also huge, for sure, but we're now at a level where >80% of people have a camera(phone) within reach of them at all times. The marginal cost of taking a photo is now $0. It's a hobby that anyone with a smartphone can now take up.
- sarchertech 3y ago
  People have cameras with them more often sure, but if you’re talking about taking up a hobby, nearly every family had a camera of some kind 20 years ago. It’s was already a near universal hobby.
  - swalling 3y ago
    There is a big difference between one digital camera per household and one in the pocket of every person at all times.
    - sarchertech 3y ago
      Sure there is, but not a big one in terms of how many people the hobby was accessible to. 20 years ago nearly everyone took pictures at some point. Every house had a camera or two, and disposal cameras were cheap and very widely available. It was widely regarded as a universal hobby back then. My mom was a wedding photographer, and people would regulars make the same arguments back then. If you look at historic BLS data the number of photographers has actually grown faster than the population has since 2020, and the wages in 2021 were about the same adjusted for inflation. Clearly smartphones haven’t had a huge impact on job numbers or salaries. My hypothesis is because photographic skill was already as devalued as it was likely to get, and that actual technical skill is a very small part of the overall job.

patmcc 3y ago

Smartphones changed access to cameras fundamentally; it went from something you had to specifically go buy to something you already have by default. Film to digital was also huge, for sure, but we're now at a level where >80% of people have a camera(phone) within reach of them at all times. The marginal cost of taking a photo is now $0. It's a hobby that anyone with a smartphone can now take up.

sarchertech 3y ago
People have cameras with them more often sure, but if you’re talking about taking up a hobby, nearly every family had a camera of some kind 20 years ago. It’s was already a near universal hobby.
- swalling 3y ago
  There is a big difference between one digital camera per household and one in the pocket of every person at all times.
  - sarchertech 3y ago
    Sure there is, but not a big one in terms of how many people the hobby was accessible to. 20 years ago nearly everyone took pictures at some point. Every house had a camera or two, and disposal cameras were cheap and very widely available. It was widely regarded as a universal hobby back then. My mom was a wedding photographer, and people would regulars make the same arguments back then. If you look at historic BLS data the number of photographers has actually grown faster than the population has since 2020, and the wages in 2021 were about the same adjusted for inflation. Clearly smartphones haven’t had a huge impact on job numbers or salaries. My hypothesis is because photographic skill was already as devalued as it was likely to get, and that actual technical skill is a very small part of the overall job.