Way back in the old-timey days, photographs were a very different beast than they are today. Images of light and dark were 
burned onto hard, silver-backed plates while human subjects were forced to sit for minutes on end; unmoving and unblinking. Photographers were part artist (using light and subject to create perfect pictures), part monk (thanks to the immense patience involved in taking a photo) and part chemist (using a cocktail of dangerous chemicals to process their images).
It could take days for the photographer to see the final result of his hard work, and that didn’t leave much room for error, experimentation or impatience. If the light was wrong, the subject moved or something went haywire with the camera, he was likely out quite a bit of money and would have to have re-shoot the pictures.
When George Eastman popularized chemical film cameras in the late 1800’s, the popularity of amateur and hobby photography was off the charts. Anyone with some disposable income could now take photos themselves, and with 100 exposures to fool around with, you could take a chance on wasting a few exposures in the hopes of getting something truly beautiful.
Well, that attitude has followed us into the digital age. Now anyone with a couple of hundred bucks can pick up a digital camera capable of taking hundreds of high-resolution images with any number of formerly ‘professional-only’ automatic settings. They can shoot to their heart’s content until they stumble upon the perfect photo (sometimes by sheer dumb luck), and whatever can’t be perfected by the camera, can be retouched in PhotoShop for any desired effect.
So why exactly do we think this is a bad thing? What about all of this causes an artist’s blood to start boiling? Why are the REAL photographers out there rolling their eyes as they read this (assuming they haven’t given up already)?
I’ve been over all of this for myself, and here are some arguments/counterarguments I’ve come up with in the last few months:
- “Easy accessibility to more and more photos makes it increasingly difficult to discern the good from the bad.” This one is pretty easy. More photos give more perspective and context. If 1 in 5 pictures is good and 1 in 100 pictures is good, you’ll still be able to spot a good photo – it will probably stand out even more.
- “More people can now get lucky taking a single great photograph.” True, but what artist hasn’t stumbled ass-backwards into a great piece of art without intending it? Raise your hands out there… That’s what I thought. Just like in any discipline, the people who get lucky once will be found out as having no skill (see ‘Pulling a Homer’ in your dictionary), whereas those who learn from moments of serendipity go on to greater things.
- “Why am I so upset by this?” I’m guessing it’s because your world is becoming increasingly accessible to everyone and that’s threatening. You should seek professional counselling.
