Before the internet, I worked as a photographer in a small advertising studio. Mostly packshots.
Even then, 'art' photography was mostly an expensive hobby, something one did on weekends and during vacations. Very, very few people saw my 'personal' photos. There were art clubs and photographers clubs, but any discerning 'pro' photographer knew they were to be avoided as the pest : breeding grounds of the insipid, the second-rate, the mindless, and the so derivative it had to be called plagiarism. Middle-aged men, bragging about their camera's and lenses and so-called 'professionalism'. That was the time the meme of the 'dentist photographer' started it's life.
The internet isn't much different, but on a much larger scale. It still is mostly an expensive hobby, but now millions of people are showing their photos to the grand global photography club. The good thing is that there are now thousands of great pictures to be found, the impossible thing that one has to wade through billions of nothing.
That, I find truly daunting. With images as with music, we are swamped with entire supertanker loads of boring clichés. And maybe even worse is the realization that most of my 'work' is not much else than those clichés I am so terribly bored with.
I like getting a favourable response when showing my photo's on the interwebs, but that is the only thing I gain from this exercise: a lot of investment in material and in honing skills, for a few likes. But my photo's are being seen by a lot more people than 20 years ago.
I publish most of my photos, the ones I deem worth looking at, on the RFF Gallery and on Facebook. (I hope this may prepare people I am likely to meet, so they are not too disconcerted when I start clicking a camera in their face.)Most of my 'friends' there, I have not or rarely met, and much of what they have to share does not really engage my attention (again, a mountain of clichés).
Frankly, knowing that a few tens or maybe even hundreds of people have appreciated your work is a very thin reward for a very expensive hobby.
I think I do it for the process : from shooting through to choosing which ones to show. And again, I prefer going through negatives rather than digital, because of the overabundance in digital. Because film is expensive, I'd rather take one good shot, than thirty-six I have to choose from. With digital, I just shot and shot, just to make sure, you know, and the result was a gigantic magma of mostly sameness. With film, I 'wait for it!', and then go for an entirely different photo. Much less goo to wade through.
And I'm still waiting for somebody to ask for a print, so I have a reason to set up my darkroom again. (or send a high resolution file😉)
