Photography these days compared to the past

[bibblebub]

The ease of taking photographs today, with camera or phone; no need to send off films and having to wait for them to be developed and printed; the simplicity with which they can be edited.

Is there anyone here who was into photography before the digital age who would care to comment on whether the standard of photographs taken by the general public has improved noticeably, or is it that, even though more photos are taken than ever before, the standard of photos shot is about the same as it ever was, simply there are so many pictures being taken that, statistically, there are bound to be more pictures of a better quality than before?

[Answerprancer]

...yayy ! I'm not the only one who is half cut :-)

[bibblebub]

Don't apologise - I posted the OP as a sleeper question that might garner a few replies over the next week or so; I didn't reckon on this many replies in the first 50 minutes.

[NazNomad]

True, AP ... but I find (meaning no disrespect) that iPhone users might not be on the same technical wavelength as an avid pinhole camera buff.

[Wak]

I don't know the percentage of good and bad photos due to going digital but I do know that digital photography now saves a whole load of family squabbles and arguments.
I started photography in 1960 with a Hanimex(?) 35mm, joined the local camera club and finished up a few years later with a long, disgruntled family queue outside the bathroom cum darkroom door while I rapidly tried to finish a 16" x 20" B/W print for the next club exhibition. Progress now allows everyone to be snap-happy which can't be a bad thing?