Not that it isn't strong. People still do it, but imaging has become much more widespread with the availability of cheap astrocameras and regular digitals that can be used. Good mounts cost a lot though. The reason visual astronomy might grow stronger is because of image quality. It must occur to some, "Why spend thousands of dollars on this when google is FILLED with fantastic images taken by other people, images that are probably better than what I can produce, unless I'm blessed with a top-flight location, gear and dedication?" When people see a guy with a C14 in Florida produce images of planets that 10 years ago required a spacecraft to obtain, it must have a bit of a deadening effect on their aspirations of imaging planets, as an example. Deep-sky is another area. Some are doing 16 hour exposures, and honing exceptional skill in post-processing. That takes more of an effort than in the film days when you did your hour long exposure, (with always slightly-trailed star images) and printed it.

http://www.ptgrey.com/case-study/id/10406