Charles Haacker wrote:[...] The sense that I have today, although I have not really looked closely, is that indeed, everyone is a photographer, and the good ones, with real skills (Duck) can make a living doing it out of a private home, and many, many do. On Facebook, Instagram, there are thousands (!!) of photographers hawking their skills as wedding photographers, baby photographers, family photographers, even a few (Duck) Small Product photographers, which is a difficult skill and I would know. I honestly do not know if the current climate is good or bad. The market is certainly saturated. [...]
Some interesting points. So, if I understand your line of thought; the oversaturation of the industry has led to a less diversified business structure. One catering to niche products and services in order to both stay relevant and successful in business. This, in turn, has made the term photographer (in the archaic sense) obsolete since that classic view of the photographer used to be much narrowly defined.
I agree. Back in the day being a photographer required a certain skill set far beyond having a good eye for composition, regardless of how that knowledge was gained. I too remember my time in the darkroom developing films and getting them printed. But I came in at a time of Fotomats and instamatic cameras. The beginning of the dilution of the term. With today's technology the ability to make great photos has increased while the need for technical ability has decreased. It's definitely a double edged sword. Your point is, I feel, at the root of the problem. The language hasn't been modified (or compartmentalized) to accommodate the diversification of jobs. Instead we are just shoving more into an already tight compartment.