Did we lose something when everyone gained a camera in their pocket? Especially video ability.

I can't describe it but I think society was better when someone with a camera was a rarity.

>>4442407 (OP)
>Gatekeeping is le good!
Contrarian cringe

>>4442407 (OP)
I can explain it easily. Photography is worth nothing now because the supply of it went up 1000x and the demand only increased maybe 2x. That's why it's so hard to actually make money doing photography. Everyone thinks they're a photographer and want to "be their own boss".

>>4442412
Not gatekeeping at all, just it seems like having a separate device without social media made taking a picture special.
Go watch some homemade movies from the 1970s/80s/90s, people's behavior was very different once you put them on camera.

>>4442412
gatekeeping is literally good. Without it retards show up into a space and dilute it into something worse

Go to bed gramps

>>4442413
I don't buy this. The iPhone camera didn't replace the EOS 1 or the F3, it replaced the Sony Mavica or the disposable camera. Utilitarian cameras that aren't intended for artistic use, just for taking a picture of something for documentational or communicative purposes. People who were shooting on professional systems back then, still are now. No one is 'marketing' themselves with their iPhone cameras. Maybe it's a starting point, a stepping stool in the same way a book about photography might have been a stepping stool for someone to pique their interest, sure. There definitely are other side effects of literally everyone having a camera on them at all times now, but I don't think this is one.

>>4442446
>The iPhone camera didn't replace the EOS 1 or the F3
It did. iPhone makes better video than an F3

>>4442446
I should have clarified my first and second point better. My first point is that since everyone has a camera and everyone posts online, the supply of photography for people to consume has skyrocketed. This makes every individual photo fairly worthless. Even if it's just pictures of your dog or your lunch people's capacity to consume photography is finite. In the olden days photography was something you had to seek out. Now it's something that is constantly delivered to you.
My second point is that since everyone is a "photographer" lots of people buy a used sony and learn how to use it and try to shoot weddings or whatever.

>>4442447
I agree with this anon. The F3 was also replaced by the Samsung SRF5300SD 498L French Door Refrigerator with Non-Plumbed Water Dispenser because it keeps grapes far cooler than the F3 ever could have. Retard.

>>4442451
Personally as someone who was alive before the iPhone, I don't remember anyone ever giving a shit about what anyone does, photography or otherwise. Unless there's something to gain for them, they have no reason to pretend to care. Even if there is something to gain, money, influence, connections, whatever, they're still only pretending to care about your work. Even wedding photographers will tell you the couple don't give a fuck about the photos, or the effort that goes it to them, they just like that they're "professional quality" images with them in them. They're just photos. I think taking photos is just as fun as it's always been and looking at other people's photos is just a boring as it's always been.

>>4442451
>This makes every individual photo fairly worthless.
It's almost like they always were worthless.

>>4442455
makes no sense to draw this conclusion based on what I said

>>4442453
yeah it's all boring but the difference now is that good photos live in a sea of iphone slop

shitty gear thread, sage

>>4442407 (OP)
Yeah, we lost the ability for the retarded masses to just sit the fuck down and experience life
Now everyone has to snapshit and vidshit every little moment of their life and every experience they have no matter how innane that moment may be, how shit the resulting images and video come out, or how unlikely it is anyone including themselves will ever actually go back and look at what they took.

>>4442407 (OP)
>I can't describe it but I think society was better when someone with a camera was a rarity.
it was
I used to believe that it would be a good thing because through the internet, basically anything would be available, and it would essentially be immortal, for instance imagine instead of having to go buy a book on Vietnam, you had a fuckhuge server filled with almost every available photo of vietnam including helmet cams, news video, cell phone footage, etc.
I've realized that I was dead wrong.
Most people take shit photos putting no thought into them, and they either get vomited onto instagram and deep fried by their compression and filters, or they rot on a cloud somewhere until they're deleted to make room for more shit photos

the only way I appreciate photos anymore, and the only way I enjoy the process is that I have a leatherbound scrapbook where I put my prints. Everything else gets deleted or thrown out. What goes in the scrapbook gets backed up on my server, but otherwise it ceases to exist.

it's really bizarre but I have gone backwards from a D850 to an AF600 point and shoot. It's no fun to grip and rip with a DSLR, and it's certainly no fun to smash a touchscreen. Phone photos look absolutely hideous as prints, too

Phones being all <40mm basically made everything look really crap.

>>4444730
>vietnam helmet cams & cell phone footage
well thanks to AI we're basically already there

>>4444850
not everything

>>4442457
More true than photography being totally devalued
If you're even slightly good people notice. Prior to smartphone cameras I think the bar was much higher. I mean internet retards regularly go apeshit for the most boring, bland, emotionless street photography in the world on reels just because there's bokeh and some pop.
Moral of the story: just go make images. Shut up and go make stuff. Get off fucking 4chan retarrds and go make stuff. Idiots.

>>4444859
Not really, you want to see Vietnam, not the interpretation of Vietnam by the computer

>>4445049
I prefer AI slop to real stuff actually

>>4442416
you're just a coping shitter

>>4445152
t. Doghair hittin up e6ai

>>4445280
What the FUCK does this even mean? I will preemptively say how dare you because it sounds bad.

t. Doghair

last less ultra processed iPhone before HDR going crazy?

>>4445411
Anyone?

>>4445411
iphone 8

>>4445411
Youve already gone crazy. I'm sorry.

>>4442453
>looking at other people's photos is just a boring as it's always been
Weird, whenever I find a photographer whose style inspires me, I go ravenous, to the point of sometimes buying their books. Maybe you just can't visualize an apple in 3D space?

>>4445500
I can that's why I dont need to look at some trust fund kids snapshits to imagine things

>>4445510
Ok, so try another hobby.

>>4445512
>Nooo photography isn't for you if you dont like muh nipponese waifus posing with rocks!
Oh I like taking photos

I just admit that photos aren't inherently important and most "photographers" have their head up their ass with a bad case of "i looked at this so its important, the place i stood makes it art". The vast majority of photobooks are non-artistic travel/editorial catalogues with an air of angst and pretentiousness. Art photography, photography truly worth looking at, is rare, and it's not so much art photography, as it is photography of art, or art made with photography.

Street photography is especially guilty of being pretentious and narcissistic. Basically angsty, overgrown children doing editorial work without a good writer. No wonder it comes from places stuffed with angsty overgrown children like japan and new york.

>>4445513
>Art photography, photography truly worth looking at, is rare
The photography worth looking at is whatever you like. It's not that complicated. The only pretentious person here is you.

>>4445514
That's a very narcissistic way of looking at things. Aesthetics are not subjective. Is language whatever has meaning "to you"? No. Absolutely not. Likewise with art, just because you enjoy it, doesn't mean it's worthwhile.

>>4445516
>Likewise with art, just because you enjoy it, doesn't mean it's worthwhile.
I'm afraid we will never come to an agreement in this discussion. You have simply overthought yourself into a corner of autistic neurosis.

>>4445517
>im not listening
>ur stupid
Such is the life of the man with no retort

"Just because you enjoy it doesn't mean it's worthwhile" is not a hard concept

>>4445516
Aesthetics are absolutely subjective. It's just that they're based on human perception and emotions so there are common throughlines with art. You just have a convenient worldview that allows you to justify to yourself why everything you like is good while everything other people like is bad.

>>4445521
>aesthetics are subjective
And in other news, sugar tastes sour.

Aesthetics are largely objective and variation cuts closer to psychiatric disorder than people are comfortable to admit. The prevalence of schizophrenia among artists is not a coincidence. It has been steadily increasing since art became a novelty market (and cover for money laundering).

We have been trying to hammer this truth into architects skulls for 30+ years and they still haven't gotten it, so I don't have high hopes for you.

>>4445519
Didn't call you stupid, called you autistic. Very different statement (but if you were clever, you'd have figured that out from the start)
>"Just because you enjoy it doesn't mean it's worthwhile" is not a hard concept
Not a hard concept, just wrong.
>Is language whatever has meaning "to you"? No. Absolutely not.
Likewise wrong. Language, to a given listener, is indeed whatever utterance has meaning. That is the generative function of language that dialects emerge from and that enacts diachronic change. The reason I can call you a gearfag and for you to have a clue what that means is precisely because language is whatever has meaning "to you". You are essentially presenting a dated prescriptivist argument and attempting to apply it to aesthetics because of your autism or shut-inness or chud-like misanthropic overthinking, or all three.

>>4445523
>Its wrong, and you're bad!
Aesthetics are not subjective
Not all enjoyable activities are worthwhile
>this is dated! AUTISM! SHUT IN!.... CHUD!
Or maybe something degenerate, objectively discordant and bad for human psychology needs not your defense

>>4445524
The very virtue of something being enjoyable makes it worthwhile, you fucking loser. Holy shit I can't believe what I'm reading.
No, you can't bring things objectively bad for human psychology into this (I can already see you bringing up some bullshit strawman "drugs are enjoyable so are they worthwhile durrrr"), because those are not purely enjoyable in the same way as enjoying somebody's art because it appeals to your aesthetic sensibilities.
And yes, you're an autistic shut-in chud, I stand by that.

>>4445526
>The very virtue of something being enjoyable makes it worthwhile
Literal hedonist.
>No, you can't bring things objectively bad for human psychology into this
Except discordant and degenerate art that runs counter to natural and objective aesthetic principles CAN be brought into this. This is a class that covers everything from schizophrenic nonsense in modern art, to literal autistic bugmen working in architecture, to where most of it actually exists - pop "art" and *government propaganda*. Discordant and degenerate DO have a valid place in art, as prior to catharsis, but their application sans catharsis serves to increase anxiety and communicate inherently negative and self destructive ideas. There is a reason propaganda, for instance, is always so fucking ugly. A lot of street photography can always go here... and there's some "art" photography that is just clearly propaganda. enemy group/enemy idea = ugly and gross to look at is an old one that won't die because: aesthetics aren't subjective, and it fuckin' works. If you call it thought provoking and brave it doesn't actually... stop being what it is.
>DRUGS: because those are not purely enjoyable in the same way as enjoying somebody's art because it appeals to your aesthetic sensibilities.
Actually drugs dont fit this like you want them to because drugs are by definition a medicine. A medicine does make you feel better, but it's not worthwhile unless it is part of a therapy to eliminate what's making you feel worse.

Shitty art on the other hand can be part of what makes you feel worse, long term, by embedding associations in your ape brain by using and abusing the laws of aesthetics

Much like architecture is used to blunt affects and demoralize captives
And propaganda is used to demonize enemies

You have no idea how old and how prevalent degenerate art is and probably thought I was just shitting on anything that isn't neoclassical.

>>4445529
Propaganda in photography is real

You just never noticed because it's actually on the chud's side

>>4445529
>moving the goalposts this hard
Very convenient for you to bring up hardly disputable common sense arguments in a totally irrelevant direction.
We're talking about photography. Individual photographers publishing their works in small scale. Whatever work you enjoy has the value you ascribe to it. If that wasn't the case, photobooks wouldn't sell. That has been my thesis from the beginning. You trying to bring top-down demoralization projects into this is yet another manifestation of your chudlike outlook.

>>4445522
wow it's like you only read my first sentence and then reacted like an animal.

>>4445500
i would've found this more interesting without the person in it, but if this is your waifu or whatever i guess that increases the value. art being subjective and all that

>>4442407 (OP)
>Did we lose something when everyone gained a camera in their pocket? Especially video ability.
no

>>4445531
Chuds are consistently correct. There’s a reason chud-kun is styled after a young ashkenazim.