So someone who writes for the paper could write a long rambling piece about how he or his photos could get selected in a photo-club, sort of. Not an average person with a (digital) camera and a smartphone or tablet or computer. In between he rambled on even after the cows came home.

Whatever 'technology has enabled', so to say - then every amateur writer/blogger who ventured into the competition would get published in that paper. The Dependent or whatever it was.
But they didn't. Others might've a blog post about it. At best; On their own blog. They've not featured. This man has. Why? Everyone has at least 3 word-processor enabled devices with them now - on a good non-alcohol non-drug induced day, everyone should've been able to write AND get published.

Re digital or film, anyone could've bought top-notch film gear and still gone off to produce images. I dont get this nonsense about digital getting you better images without any intervention - the 'better' part is in the immediacy!
In good daylight - as the author says - who's to say a full frame P&S film camera wouldn't be better than the digital aps-c P&S?

And to say technique or technological know-how is not required now, is rubbish! Most cameras now have a textbook instead of a manual - hell, a flash I bought used has a 150pg user manual.
Hows it 'easier'? Where's the lack of need for technical knowledge?

At a certain point of time, I used to get really irritated by people posting pictures of traffic in motion - long exposures with basically tail-lights trailing - mostly because of it was the kind of 'at x place open shutter for y seconds n be done'.
When I attempted it myself, I realised that while I was right in that the images being bad - it wasn't anywhere close to easy to get a dramatic one, myself (not to my satisfaction anyways) - the tail-light trails of course were easy -just stand at a fly-over/ pedestrian overpass.
(I still get irritated by such photos, but I don't subscribe to those groups anymore B-))

Sent from Tap-a-talk