I think "democratized photography" is a perfectly cromulent statement to make. The cost of the PC is immaterial. People already had a PC for e-mail and porn. Th

I think "democratized photography" is a perfectly cromulent statement to make. The cost of the PC is immaterial. People already had a PC for e-mail and porn. The average PC cost was also below $1000, not $2000. Even if they never bought a camera they still had a PC for e-mail and porn. Photography got democratized because two different groups went digital: the 12-roll-per-year shooters and people that would never pay $10 a roll to get film developed. By 2000 there were 1-2MP point & shoots for $400 and just two years later such cameras were under $150. By the middle of the decade that would get 4-5MP (with a better overall sensor) and 10MP by the end of the decade (with yet better sensors). Both groups were well served by the advantages of digital. They had a big viewfinder and could review photos on the camera. The 12-roll-a-year crowd could take a year's worth of photos at a single event. The new-camera-owner set could take only a handful of photos and not feel guilty for "wasting" their camera. Both groups could shoot trivial things they'd never waste film on. Anecdata: I got interested in photography around 99/00. The marginal cost of film ended up being prohibitive to me. I could barely afford to take enough photos to just learn the ins and outs of my camera. I then got a cheap digital point & shoot. It was 1.3MP and pretty much garbage quality optics. I used the everloving shit out of it and really learned how to use it. I learned to frame shots and to effectively use lighting. Just the fact I could take dozens of photos on a pair of rechargeable AA batteries just let me practice and experiment.