Stats

As of today, there are an estimated 7.129 billion people in the world.

6.786 billion of them have digital cameras.

5.318 billion people have an app out. 16.7% of those have hired PR agencies, and 8.53% of those have an employee named Jessica, Ashley, Brittany or Amanda* who would be happy to let me have a free app in return for a review which surely my readers would be interested in.

Four million people are having a show (804 million if you count the Internet). This number fluctuates. The average number of prints sold per show is .007 (<.000001 if websites are included.)

Approximately 2.6 million of the planet's residents spend some appreciable amount of time looking at other peoples' photographs.

Slightly fewer than 1.3 million people have a book out. This is good, but it makes it difficult to keep up. No one person on Earth, for instance, has seen every book published by Steidl except maybe Steidl. But it's possible he has missed one or two.

Cumulatively, about $44,800,000 was spent for photographs in 2012, which sounds good at first, but roughly half of it went to 21 photographers in L.A., NYC, Toronto, London, Paris, Rome, Milan, Berlin, and Tokyo, and they haven't actually seen any of it yet. (Still in the billing cycle.)

More than 650 photojournalists are still employed! 

On the bad side, all but three are nervous.

Of the 6.786 billion cameras in the world, more than 220 million of them are advanced, interchangeable lens cameras with 1" sensors or larger. But those 220 million cameras are owned by only 16 million people, including 1,450 guys who are completely out of control. Oh, you know who you are.

Of those 16 million advanced camera owners, only eighty-seven individuals understand every single feature on every one of their cameras.

Of those, one-third write blogs.

•     •     •

I have all the above on pretty good authority, but you should bear in mind that I'm not good with numbers.

Mike

*Absolutely no disrespect to anyone who has any of those names. They are beautiful names.

P.S. TOP is off tomorrow. Knowing me, I'll probably post something anyway.

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Jock Elliott: "'Of those 16 million advanced camera owners, only eighty-seven individuals understand every single feature on every one of their cameras.' It calls to mind an old saying from the world of shooting sports: 'Beware the man with one gun; he might know how to use it.' I, for one, find my problem is not that I need a new camera, but that I don't know how do adequately use the ones I have."

Erik: "'Statistics are like bikinis: what they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital…' —Prof. Aaron Levenstein."

Comments

[Gato]

"Of those 16 million advanced camera owners, only eighty-seven individuals understand every single feature on every one of their cameras."

I think you vastly overestimate the number of people who fully understand their cameras. The rest of the article I agree with, mostly.

[Steve G, Mendocino]

Mike:

Speaking from personal experience, you nailed the 'number of prints sold per show'...

Steve

[Wayne Pearson]

Amazing! Came up with the same numbers last week when I looked into it... Excellent post

[01af]

All this will make perfect sense when you just keep in mind that 91.2 % of all statistical statements are simply made up by their author.

[Speed]

There is one IBM Selectric typewriter still in use in a six floor apartment building on the Southside of Chicago. The operator is working on the 12th draft of The Great American Novel. She is named either Debby, Linda, Susan or Mary Kay. I don't know about her cat. Or cats.

[Roger Bradbury]

And 83% of statistics are made up on the spot.
No, wait, it's nearer 39%, or more like 66%, or..... : ]

[Marek Fogiel]

" including 1,450 guys who are completely out of control. Oh, you know who you are."

- How did you make it to spot me Mike ???

[rnewman]

And here I thought I was one of the few. Its nice to know I have so much company, but I wish I did better on the number of sales and the amount I got.

[Jules A.]

If only 29/87 really informed camera owners are writing blogs, I'm really curious what the motivation for such compulsive "study" would be for the 58 others? (OK, I understand it may simply be a clinical issue...)

OTOH I'm convinced there are at least 367,221 owners of "advanced" cameras who actually use them, attempting to make meaningful, even artistic, images. But these individuals male, female, young, old don't inhabit forums, but go about their pursuits quietly.

And these photographers no doubt produce at least some noteworthy images, but drowned out by the "noise", all the kinds you mention, their work is doomed to obscurity.

A real shame, and our loss, albeit a problem without a good solution.

However, I constantly hold a good thought that Instgram, et. al., will eventually and rightfully be consigned to a dark corner of the netherworld. And somehow, there will endure more than a few really fine images produced by those earnest, dedicated 367,221 photographers among us.

[Craig]

The real problem is not that one-third of the people who really understand their cameras write blogs, but that there is a high degree of overlap between people who understand every feature of their camera and tech geeks who don't understand art.

[Ed Kirkpatrick]

Mike, you really do need a "Like" button...

[Steve Brenner]

You forgot to include the number of TOP viewers. Surely it's at least half of the 16 million, but only the 1,450 are commenters

[David Brown]

Seven out of ten people believe that 40% of all statistics are made up.

[Bryce Lee]

Mike, go play on your new billiard table.
Be constructive and remember it is not entirely a numbers game, a little white bouncing ball figures in the equation.

You'll have fun amd besides the ball has no brain; unlike the person handling the stick, you!

[Moose]

"... eighty-seven individuals understand every single feature on every one of their cameras."

That many?

On not one, but all cameras?

Who knew there were so many Gods among us?

I've been using an E-M5 and E-Pens exclusively for 17 months. I would claim to understand the supposedly mysterious menu system. Messing around with the newish GX7 yesterday, I saw a setting I liked, wished the E-M5 had that, wondered, checked - and it does.

Even discounting the GX7, I've been busy forgetting details of the Canons that preceded the E-Olys.

I think the only one, or handful who understand every bit of all their cameras - have only one camera. (More only if all film.)

BTW, The often disparaged Oly menu system is easier to use than the Panny menus on the GX7. Practically everything of interest is in one menu heading, eight pages long, with no submenus. Ridicerlous! (and annoying)

Moose

[russell]

Studies have proven that 83% of statistics are made up on the spot.

[Ben Syverson]

Hey, as an app developer, I resemble that! Hmm. Well, at least I bugged you directly rather than hiring a PR agency. :)

[Patrick Perez]

Of course, TOP readers are ALL above average!

Patrick

[Calum Fraser]

It's a well known fact that 83.72% of all quoted statistics are made up on the fly...this a long established and noble tradition...kudos for its continuation...unless of course you researched the numbers!

[Adrian Malloch]

Ha!
Speaking of segues, 86.5 percent of statistics are made up on the spot.

[Bernard]

I can belive that there is 6.786 billion digital cameras in the world. But that doesn't mean that 6.786 billion people have one. Probably if you told that about 6 billion people DOESN'T have any of these 6.8 billion cameras you would be far closer to the exact number. ;)

[Huw Morgan]

Only 1 blog actually gets read (TOP of course).

6.786 billion people take 6.786 pictures a day. These files occupy a large farm of disk drives located in the North Pole where the arctic air keeps the drives cool. The heat from these drives is melting the polar ice cap.

[George Barr]

Brilliant, and a good chuckle at the end of a long day. Also some pretty serious implications for those of us who call ourselves serious photographers.

On the other hand, I'm averaging one print per show, which means that in about 598 years I could retire.

Am I missing something here?

George

[Mark K Lough]

Mike

Absolutely Beautiful
and definitive. As close as you can get.

[Dave in NM]

Thank you, Mike. That explains everything.

[Richard]

like the old Harpers' Index.

[Jim Ullrich]

Let's see, 7.129 billion people, 6.786 have digital cameras. How many pixels?

Maybe John Wheeler, Richard Feynman's thesis advisor, was right when he postulated that there was only one electron in the universe! One pixel?

[Jeff Damron]

I believe that only 2.7 of the cited numbers are actually accurate.

[Steve Jacob]

Excellent and so true. Just as true as the fact that 98.34% of all statistics are made up on the spot ;-)

But a complete riot. Thanks for brightening up my weekend.

[Gordon Buck]

Dilbert statistics: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-05-08/?Page=4

[David]

As Brittany or Amanda might say..LMFAO.

[John Holland]

"The average number of prints sold per show is .007."

The average number of prints viewed per show is .008.

Which is still orders of magnitude higher than the average number of Flickr photo pageviews by someone other than the photographer and their mother, a figure that has zeros in the first 5 decimal places.

All of these billions of unseen photos will vanish forever when Yahoo goes bankrupt.

Why do we take pictures again? I forget.

[Peter Barnes]

Thank you Mike! I'd be typing LOL (because I actually did) if it wasn't such a lame way of showing your appreciation of another's humour.

[Jim]

Accurate numbers aren't any more useful than made up numbers.

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-05-08/

[Dean Forbes]

A "top" post of 2013 :-)

[m3photo]

" ... but you should bear in mind that I'm not really good with numbers."

You are not alone. All Americans have trouble with numbers; you see a billion is a million millions not a thousand millions ... ;-)

[Nick Cutler]

There are, as you know, only 10 types of people in the photographic world:

Those who understand binary and digital.

And those who don't.

[Warren Jones]

Very convincing Mike, However I do have one quibble with your numbers that needs clarification. Does the 1450 out of control guys number include all those who bought a Sony A7R on the DPR forum just this week alone? : )

[David Miller]

Mike, this may be the funniest post you've ever written, but I think those hilarious statistics cradle deep insight and (slightly uncomfortable) truth.

I've commented before that there are too many photographs in the world: is this why I have set myself a retirement project of learning to draw? (And I've started work on it! But I still want a GX7…)

[Will Frostmill]

Mike,
Say, has anyone tried a silent auction to sell their work in a gallery?
Will

[Anton Wilhelm Stolzing]

Many thumbs up for this article with its vital informations! :-D

[cgw]

See if there's an "Innumerates Anonymous" chapter in your area, Mike.

[John H]

I saw what you did there.

[Tim Fitzwater]

Of those 6.786 billion only I shot the photos I shot today.

[Michael T.]

The only camera I have ever owned that I understand all the features is my 4x5 view camera!

[Another Phil]

Did you know that 97% of all Pentax lenses ever sold are owned by only 4 people on Pentaxforums?

[[email protected]]

and then there's the "Geewe effect" that demonstrates that a certain point exhaustive knowledge concerning a cameras functionality pretty much ensures that the user will be using said knowledge to take overwhelmingly forgettable pictures . . . .

[Patrick Perez]

I can't believe I'm the first to weigh in with the fact that 71.7% of all statistics are made up!

As regards David's comment about Amanda or Brittany, I use the initialism LMCAO (where C stands for copious).

Patrick