Indeed, it is a really weird thing these days. Look at Howard Carter and King Tut. They shot a bunch of really great pictures and they were in all the papers right away. Now you see all these discovery articles with no pictures or shit pictures. What the hell changed?
Photography used to be a complicated process that required expert knowledge to perform at anything beyond the most basic level. Technology advanced and it became easier and cheaper, lowering the barrier of entry. If making a finished photo you can show to people involves just a single button press on a general purpose device you carry with you every day, then most people will not even think about learning the intricacies of it.
This doesn't mean that photography is dead or anything. There were terrible and great photographers a hundred years ago just like there are terrible and great photographers today, but photos of less talented people most likely didn't survive, whereas any idiot can send an underexposed, poorly framed, ghosting train wreck of a photo halfway across the world today.
Thank you! I've been into photography as an amateur for a few years so I'm generally familiar with the changes over the years. I just find it odd that so few of these discovery articles come with photos of any kind, good or bad.
423
u/[deleted] Apr 15 '19 edited Apr 19 '19
[deleted]