"fascinating facts" may be a wee bit of an overstatement on two accounts! But, I am, in "fact" "fascinated" by the "fact" that you spent as much time as I estimate went into the detail -- and humor -- of this piece. Have you thought about exploring the number of humans (or other photo-taking species) that might impact the analysis (e.g., toddlers who get ahold of parents' cellphones and push buttons, dogs that step on the phones while licking the gravy off of the phone, etc.)?
Thanks, Dave, fascinating stuff! I did notice that you made no mention of the recent popularity of Polaroid-type cameras. Is that because it's not statistically significant?
You are writing about something in my wheelhouse. And I agree, sticking to 1998 for the reasons you state as the only comparative datapoint is a good decision. I have no data for numbers of images - I've never read a report on that. But generally, it was reported that 2004 was the date when more digital cameras were sold than film cameras. I could hunt out the source for that, but I have a feeling you like doing that kind of thing.
Other inflexion points:
The invention of the Kodak Brownie - brought photography to the masses for the first time.
Invention of Kodak Instamatic PLUS one hour photo-printing - this really caused an uptick in photography to the masses
Or Penelope Umbrico who found out that the most tagged image on flickr was 'sunset' and she subsequently - on a yearly basis at least until flickr lost favour amongst photographers - would collect data on how many images were tagged 'sunset. http://www.penelopeumbrico.net/index.php/project/sunset-portraits/ scroll down for the data as part of the image title.
☕️Hello Dave, this is the first article from your Substack that I have read.
My reading experience went like this:
•Intrigue.
•Curious, but measured reading.
•Spit-take from unexpected biting laughter.
•Wipe coffee off phone to continue reading.
•Repeat.
Based on this experience, I am looking forward to listening to more of your statistical nonsense at the party on October 2nd.
Perhaps I’ll bring a camera.
"fascinating facts" may be a wee bit of an overstatement on two accounts! But, I am, in "fact" "fascinated" by the "fact" that you spent as much time as I estimate went into the detail -- and humor -- of this piece. Have you thought about exploring the number of humans (or other photo-taking species) that might impact the analysis (e.g., toddlers who get ahold of parents' cellphones and push buttons, dogs that step on the phones while licking the gravy off of the phone, etc.)?
Thanks, Dave, fascinating stuff! I did notice that you made no mention of the recent popularity of Polaroid-type cameras. Is that because it's not statistically significant?
David,
You are writing about something in my wheelhouse. And I agree, sticking to 1998 for the reasons you state as the only comparative datapoint is a good decision. I have no data for numbers of images - I've never read a report on that. But generally, it was reported that 2004 was the date when more digital cameras were sold than film cameras. I could hunt out the source for that, but I have a feeling you like doing that kind of thing.
Other inflexion points:
The invention of the Kodak Brownie - brought photography to the masses for the first time.
Invention of Kodak Instamatic PLUS one hour photo-printing - this really caused an uptick in photography to the masses
But mostly, I think you will enjoy reading about Erik Kessels who did print out all the images uploaded to flickr in one day. https://www.erikkessels.com/24hrs-in-photos
Or Penelope Umbrico who found out that the most tagged image on flickr was 'sunset' and she subsequently - on a yearly basis at least until flickr lost favour amongst photographers - would collect data on how many images were tagged 'sunset. http://www.penelopeumbrico.net/index.php/project/sunset-portraits/ scroll down for the data as part of the image title.
I just have to say Thank You, Dave. Thank you for digging into these vitally important questions, so that the rest of us don't have to.
That's what I'm here for, France.
There's a q