40oz
...
sitemistic said:As of 2001, the last year we have complete statistics, the World Bank found approximately 4 billion people lived in what it terms severe or moderate poverty (living on less than $2 a day). An additional 2 billion lived in "functional" poverty. None of these folks are a target market for a camera. Even those just above the poverty level are not likely to spend their meager resources on cameras and film.
Most don't even have access to clean water, much less a one-hour photo lab.
Such figures as "living on less than $2 a day" are meaningless. We don't know the exchange rates of various communities, and are ignoring the very real fact that food that costs $10 in the US doesn't cost the same everywhere. You certainly haven't mentioned any facts to back up your statement that "most of those 7 billion can't afford food." You'd need figures stating 3.5 billion starve to death each year, or accept most of those who can't afford food have it provided by a parent or child, as they are either too young or too old to work for it. Acknowledging that even if they can't afford food, they are hardly devoid of interests outside of mere survival.
My parents grew on farms, where very little money was spent on store goods. In a largely agrarian economy, the money that folks need to get by is very minimal. But that hardly means they have nothing, or are starving to death. My grandparents all had cameras, and took pictures of family events. You might think everyone with less money than you has more important things to spend it on then pictures, I think you'd find that the reality is far different. Agrarian economies skew towards poverty, but that ignores the fact that most get by just fine, using their meager $2 a day per family member to buy luxuries and necessary staples not easily produced on a farm, such as flour and sugar and something to document family events like wedings and births. Contrary to modern US farms, traditional farm families grow crops to feed livestock, which feed the family and are the income generator. This belies the reality of the world - if most are agrarian, they will compare as poor to their industrialized cousins, yet be getting along rather nicely, thank you very much, because much of what they need comes from their own farm or from trading with neighbors.
I can't afford one-hour labs much myself, but I still have the resources to take pictures on film and process it myself. The idea that only the "rich" use cameras is so grossly out of reality it's actually sad. Sure, folks with lots of money might be more cavalier about film usage, but it's hardly the entire market.