If you're trying to be innovative in any artistic field, odds are you're not the one who has the skill and the environment around them to actually innovate, this is just statistical.
I don't think people should get hung up on this quandary tho. You should be taking photos because you like it, the whole process, from shooting to development and post. If you're doing it for solely any other reason I think you're lost and will ultimately find yourself disappointed in the long run. Innovation is cool but why worry about what you're doing is played out, or if you should stop doing it, just because theres 1000+ people out there doing the same thing as you? If being special and unique is important to you and that truth bothers you, I think you're in it for the wrong reason.
Technological advances in photography are cool, and so are artistic advances, and they're still being made, just probably (most likely) not by you.
Something more important though, even though i think this is an edgy response to your question (
>>3138777 ) is how important photography is to history and documentation. When you see an old photo, even early daguerreotypes, are you trying to imagine how close that photo was to some sort of innovation or if it was at the margin or edge of some artistic phenomenon? Most likely not, and if you do look at photos that way you're most likely on the spectrum. You look at photos and imagine the time, the space, and the environment first and foremost. Photos aren't important artistically and compositionally except for a small niche population that consumes those photos. I'm more intrigued by the lasting legacy photography will have on how the world was, and how we chose to look at it.
Tl;dr -- if lack of artistic innovation in photography is a nuisance for you KYS
