This has been a heck of a read! While things have appeared to have gotten somewhat heated at times, overall, the participants have keps good discussion going, and even as I was reading, I read things and points of view (on both sides of the discussion) that I hadn't considered before...so thanks, everyone, for that.
One thing that's been touched on, but that I really believe has more impact than many would like to admit, is that technology advancement has not just incrementally affected photography (on both the production and consumption ends); it has fundamentally altered the entire process. No longer must a photographer master things like precise focus, exposure, etc. For the vast majority of situations, autofocus, modern metering, and vibration compensation neuters, if not nullifies a fine level of hands-on experience.
True, this does not apply to all possible situations, but for the majority, which do not push the limits of the equipment...the wonders of technology have certainly 'lowered the barriers to entry', in effect, allowing a photographer with a fraction of the skill required of a professional in decades past to produce images of a technical quality that are much closer to that of the professional than they would have been a few decades ago.
Ah, but what about those situations where the technical wizardry can't solve all problems? Simply put, two main factors go a long way toward mitigating this: First, the sheer volume of images made possible by digital photography makes it easier for the photographer to justify simply not publishing the shots where his camera failed him, and sharing only those where all went well.
The second, more subtle factor is the consumers themselves.
While weddings still require a high level of expertise, for most other, more casual shoots, the primary intended use of the images, outside of maybe a handful of prints, is online sharing and other digital consumption.
Add to this, the trend in recent years toward what is, for lack of a better term, the acceptance, or even desire of 'intentionally bad photos' with obvious technical faults that intentionally look like a pocket camera snapshot, and the errors of the photographer can often be passed off as intentional...many times to the delight of the uninformed consumer.
A friend of mine has started doing portrait work in recent years, and seeing some of the stuff he puts on his page just makes me cringe. It's not that he's a terrible photographer, but at my own level of skill, I don't feel I'm "good enough" to charge someone for my work...and when I see the cream of the crop from his shoots...they're all shots that, even for my own personal use, I'd have scrapped. But it's what the people want...and as we all know, it's not about giving the customer what you want them to have...it's about making them happy.
