>>4276897Harsh, mean spirited. But true. This was not originally the hobby of the people. You need way more stuff than just the camera to even appreciate the camera.
Did it ever strike anyone as odd that photographer could be a profession? Can't people just take photos themselves? Did you ever what crazy scientific expedition a 4x5 field camera was invented for? Surely there aren't that many professional photographers? People aren't making an 8x10 or larger each and every day and if they did they'd run out of space and money. But rich people are. Rich people have 16x20s of their cats hung up.
99% of 20th century photography looks like snapshits anyone could have taken with a modest budget to you now but adjusted for economic facts, at some points film costed more than it does now when it's already "too expensive". Now put that into perspective with the sheer volume required to get street photography into a gallery.
https://mikeeckman.com/2021/11/a-look-back-at-the-prices-of-film/The digital camera hype is wearing off, and a lot of people are realizing that the only people who can enjoy a good camera have everything else sorted. Nothing will show the full resolution, and they cant share it, unless they're part of a different social class and can afford the big screens and hang up the big prints. Outside of the 1% most people dont have room for anything above a 5x7 unless it's documenting a major life event, that's it. They would actually feel insulted if you insinuated they should hang up 16x20 blurry monochrome street snaps - that would be way larger than their engagement photo. Unless they're rich, then their engagement, wedding, and honeymoon are a tryptych of A0s in the dining room.
The DINKs, SINKs, and odd actual richfags here ARE the 1%. Whenever you see a glimpse of someone's life on /p/ they're wealthy europeans, live in mcmansions, or are cryptocurrency trading traveling hermits. The stereotypical DSLR owner was a rich asian - not a coincidence.