The digital camera and mobile phone camera are the latest harbingers of democatising photography... or are they?
 
We know that photography democratised portraiture to some extent, where camera meant you no longer had to be rich enough to commission a painter to have your image immortalised.... And we know that 35mm created another shift in democracy where the photographer didn't have to cart around an unwieldy tripod.... and look how polaroid brought imaging truly into the homes of just about everyone in the western world....

So it would follow that the camera phone, one of the most ubiquitous pieces of technology in the world would seem to follow this trend, but in my opinion it doesn't. Ok, more people may be able to actually take photos, but can more people see them? With all other forms of photography where the output was a printed image, anyone could see it without the need for extra technology.

Now with the digital image, where distribution most often takes place via email, MMS messaging or social networking sites, surely we could see this as reveerting back to elitism? Unless the photographer chooses to print their image, actually viewing it, without extra kit is harder than ever before. What about people who do not have access to these technologies? What about people who live in rural or remote areas where mobile phone signals and broadband are but a whiff on the horizon? What about older people who just can't get their heads around the technology and just don't want to?

What about others like me, who are so immersed in technology day in and day out,  that when they want some low-fi down time, the joy of the printed photograph has become rare?