I don't think I have seen a single blog post or article that doesn't simply whinge and moan about "Instagram" and mobile photography. It's the moron's picnic, where the well intended but ineffective use of filters brings out the whinge based blog posts and news articles, and the mobile baby is thrown out with the filtered bath water.

    Do you really think because you know "photography", "better", than a few people that you know better than everyone? You're so securely superior that you forget how to look for something worth looking for. Hah, you're missing out, you're stuck in the past. Goodbye, suckers.

    The photographers and/or writers who attack mobile photography and Instagram often initially validate their opinion by expressing a love of photography. They then say, that they know how to share images without compromise. They convince themselves that their creative ideology ensures that their conclusions are sufficiently supported, or sometimes simply convince themselves of superiority based upon photographic medium or prior photographic history. There's no questions asked, just half baked conclusions.

    Not one article I've read either asks or answers: Where are the visionaries? The people who see the future and the potential? Who is out there spotting the pioneers? The cutting edge insightful and inspirational leaders of a new medium? I know that such people are not simply writing articles about filters and basic app functions. And they're definitely not the enthusiastic mobile photography lunatic fringe, where platitudes, words and suggested follower numbers somehow qualify you as a medium leader.

    So, next time you hear another complaint about mobile photography, that sounds the same as all the others, maybe you'll realise that Instagram filters aren't the only things that get repeatedly applied without significant purpose or effect.

    The prevailing attitude still being expressed here is "mobile photography is simply unconscious fun, with an element of randomized post processing using an retro-like filter". If this is you, I really need to know why do you continue to assume this definition? Are you really that easily convinced by the mass of "non-photographers" that you allow them to be the ones that define a medium?

    Why would you keep making these assumptions about the medium based upon a single type of user? This is exactly my point I made previously, that people decide that one example of the images created by the medium determine the nature of the entire medium. It's a failure in the current attitude in photography to cling to such a conclusion.

    I welcome alternate aesthetic preferences, but I've seen bad photography in every medium, and I didn't assume that it categorized the photographic medium. What's clear is that there is an inability among existing photographic circles to look for examples of mobile photography that are outside of mainstream press articles. There is also a complete misunderstanding of the nature of "mobile photography", and confusion as to where it becomes "mobile publishing".

    I know that some people already know, but many do not understand that Instagram is simply a mobile publishing platform. Instagram is not "photography" - that's akin to saying that stretched canvas prints, platinum prints or photo books are "photography" - they're essentially just how the images are displayed. The image size shared on Instagram is simply optimized for mobile viewing, while the original image file is capable of the larger resolution printing if desired. I've seen excellent quality images printed and exhibited from mobile phones.

    It seems to me that the mobile photography capabilities have easily surpassed the knowledge and attitudes of people, and their assumptions need to be challenged.