You say, "devalued;" I say, "democratized." The shift to digital has made photography available to many people who would have never had a chance to capture their own moments before--and perhaps more importantly, made sharing those moments infinitely easier. I'm sure it wasn't intended this way, but the premise of the original question is rather snobbish.
If someone's Instagram account helps them learn about composition and gives them the supportive feedback they need to move on to better cameras and start learning about ISO and aperture, great. This is not a zero sum game.
For me, learning more about photography has made me value the work of truly good photographers much more. Once upon a time, I would have thought my D800 would make me a pro. Back then, I lacked cognitive complexity in this field. Whereas then I might be able to identify a "good" or "bad" photo, now I understand many shades between those ends, and what goes into different types of photography. For example, what makes a great wedding photo is quite different from what makes a great sports photo. And when I watch interviews on Fstoppers, I get a glimpse of the a world I know is beyond my current abilities.
If anything, I think the democratization of photography has placed more emphasis on the skill of the photographer. Back when cameras were rare, taking just about any daguerreotype was "art." In an age when ANYONE can get passable snapshots at anytime, professionals have to up their game to to get nearly-perfect photos. If that requires a machine gun approach, so be it.
I dare say, the OP's mindset even extends to the camera manufacturers, despite being against their fiscal self-interest. The only reason I can think for Nikon not including scene modes on the D4 and D800 like they do on the D7000 and below is to keep the riffraff out.
When I hear comments like the one above--and photography forums are rife with them--they always seem not so different from the protestations of other industries who seek some form of protection/privilege for an outdated business model rather than adapting to new realities (the RIAA and MPAA come to mind).
If someone's Instagram account helps them learn about composition and gives them the supportive feedback they need to move on to better cameras and start learning about ISO and aperture, great. This is not a zero sum game.
For me, learning more about photography has made me value the work of truly good photographers much more. Once upon a time, I would have thought my D800 would make me a pro. Back then, I lacked cognitive complexity in this field. Whereas then I might be able to identify a "good" or "bad" photo, now I understand many shades between those ends, and what goes into different types of photography. For example, what makes a great wedding photo is quite different from what makes a great sports photo. And when I watch interviews on Fstoppers, I get a glimpse of the a world I know is beyond my current abilities.
If anything, I think the democratization of photography has placed more emphasis on the skill of the photographer. Back when cameras were rare, taking just about any daguerreotype was "art." In an age when ANYONE can get passable snapshots at anytime, professionals have to up their game to to get nearly-perfect photos. If that requires a machine gun approach, so be it.
I dare say, the OP's mindset even extends to the camera manufacturers, despite being against their fiscal self-interest. The only reason I can think for Nikon not including scene modes on the D4 and D800 like they do on the D7000 and below is to keep the riffraff out.
When I hear comments like the one above--and photography forums are rife with them--they always seem not so different from the protestations of other industries who seek some form of protection/privilege for an outdated business model rather than adapting to new realities (the RIAA and MPAA come to mind).
