>>3015397Probably because while there is a low barrier to entry which appeals to a lot of people, film the subsequently costs a lot more to the point where it hurts 'em and reduces their ability to shoot as much as they'd actually impusively do.
Many kinda realize that and seek external validation for their expenses. Best given from people that would stroke their ego over having made the superior choice even if this doesn't factually check out in most ways.
But it's resulting in better feels.
>>3015398Yes. Of course it also has to do with simply more people shooting more photos to a higher standard for reduced cost reasons, rather than just time.
There are so many good photos that we actually have trouble electing "that one extraordinary talent" like muh Ansel Adams - which also would have had way more problems had he operated on flickr and in a situation where most people could afford cameras and film in the same quantities and to the same technical standard.
Plus artfaggots mostly prefer cults of the dead high society. Applies for painters, musicians and so on too. [Not that many modern artists don't have a much bigger audience that loves their work in reality...]
