On Sat, 19 May 2018 20:31:43 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 17 May 2018 17:43:30 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Davoud:
Being a bit snooty, aren't we? My mileage has varied a great deal. It's
not quantity vs quality; for hundreds of millions of people it's camera
vs no camera. And an awful lot of those people are taking great
pictures. These, e.g.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...one-photos-of-
2017_us_5953d2aee4b05c37bb7b3e8f.

And in video, the Oscar-winning movie shot in part on an iPhone
https://nofilmschool.com/2013/03/oscar-searching-sugar-man-shot-iphone.

So stow the smugness. It's still the photographer, not the camera.

Ron C:
I was thinking more of the psycho-social impact where the experience
is being supplanted by the need to document. I have no problem with
great, or even spectacular photos are frequently captured on a phone.
I do worry a bit about the seeming obsession to document life rather
than live it in real time.

The world is full of genuinely poor people who can never aspire to
owning a smart phone.

so what? they won't be buying a camera either.

You shouldn't have snipped the final paragraph.

And I was responding to "the stupidity" (although I wouldn't call it
that) of the comment in the snipped paragraph. There are many parts of
the world where the people are so poor that a person who can afford a
smartphone or camera is regarded as wealthy.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens