[Stats] How Many Photos Have Ever Been Taken?

[Stats] How Many Photos Have Ever Been Taken?

Try wrapping your head around these statistics. Approximately 3.5 trillion photos have been taken since Daguerre captured Boulevard du Temple 174 years ago.  The global photo count is rising swiftly due to the accessibility of digital cameras and camera phones. Today, more pictures are taken every two minutes than were taken throughout the 1800s. It is estimated that ten percent of all photos ever taken were taken in the last twelve months. Approximately 140 billion photos have been uploaded to Facebook; that's 10,000 times the number of photos in the Library of Congress. Unbelievable!

Via: 1000 Memories

__

From Amy:

Thank you so much for reading! You can find me on Facebook or my website. Have a lovely day.

Posted In: 
Log in or register to post comments

10 Comments

Might as well just relabel the lighter colored line "Photo Quality".

Patrick Hall's picture

really?  I find that the cheapest point and shoot camera at 8 megapixels blows away 90% of all film images taken.  The modern digital camera produces much better images than those throw away point and shoot film cameras any day.  

Sure if you're looking at photo quality from a technology perspective...

 I am going to take you to task on this one. Out of a film point and shoot, yes. Film in general you are dreaming. Case in point: name me one "nature photographer" armed with the most cutting edge digital equipment that can even come close to the 4x5 work that Adams did.

Alfred's picture

That is a matter of choice and perspective. And, I believe that Adams, like Weston and Bullock, worked with 8x10 cameras. Admas chose to enlarge his work - I think he actually enlarged sideways onto a wall - Weston's finished products were contact prints (I got to see Cole W. demo how he printed Dad's work). But, who these days is really into lugging a 40 lb. camera, plus film holders and a 20 lb. tripod around all day.

Given the advancements in technology, image sensor pixel densities are exceeding silver crystal densities, dynamic ranges are improved, results are quicker, and the photog does not have to spend nights sucking in chemical fumes. As someone who grew up on Tri-X and Pan-F, Cibachrome, and who did work with a 4x5 and 120 roll film, I would not go back. I'm sure some day, larger image sensors will be more afforadble for those seeking even more image "quality".

Some of the "craft" of photography has moved from the darkroom to the computer and editing software. That has made it easier for many who would never have approached a darkroom to enter into photography. So, exclusivity has been lost for some. And, maybe some of the majic and anticipation with seeing the image materialize during development. But, I still would not go back.

But if you consider the original daguerreotype, there is nothing today that can equal the level of information and the detail with original capture of the daguerreotype. http://www.pixiq.com/article/the-devil-in-the-daguerreotype-details

YouTube accumulates 48 hours of video every minute. Resulting in 8 years of video a day. Can't even imagine their servers
http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2011/05/thanks-youtube-community-for-...

James Robertson's picture

Sources? not that I dont trust the author, but Id still like to know.

Amy Hobbs's picture

 My link to the original post was incorrect - fixed it!  But it's here if you'd like to read more: http://1000memories.com/blog/94-number-of-photos-ever-taken-digital-and-...

They've got some footnotes at the bottom as well :)