jpk wrote:Thanks, I think that's about the last word on this from me.
Yes, if you're interested in sheer quantity, there's more imagery being generated. If you're unnecessarily concerned with whether any of it is any good, then you're out of luck. Finally, some agreement.
Well, how else will we deem the end of photography in an objective sense? More photographs are being taken, more photos are being appreciated. I think that's brilliant.
We can look at any iconic photo (or other artwork for that matter) and pick holes in the colouring, the focus, the exposure, the print itself, the digital errors you claim are so apparent, if we wish. Nothing is without flaw.
Why should we? They are so much more than that.
jpk wrote:That's right, of course. Anyone who disagrees with you is just out to annoy you. Very perceptive.
The key 'if' has already been pointed out for me, it is just that your opinion differs wildly from most I have heard before, and there are a great many people who take some perverse enjoyment from driving people to annoyance. My apologies. Evidently I am not very perceptive, hence the clarifying clause.
Also, how is she going to get insurance money? Will her policy cover spontaneous combustion?