But if you know, its expensive, you take much more time to take a
picture. With digital cameras, you dont think about it.
Thats the difference. You take your time, and take a better image and the
I think the evidence says the opposite.
There was a study on something like this, where students were assigned to either take x number of photos every day, regardless of quality, and a different group of students were assigned to present exactly one, and that would determine their grade.
Or something along that line -- I'm just recalling this from memory, and am sure some bits are wrong.
From what I remember, _every single one_ of the students who did quantity over quality wound up _also_ having better quality.
And, while I've never owned an analog camera, my experience with it, and seeing pictures other people produced, is lots of terrible to mediocre shots. And a fair amount of thumbs or fingers.
People get better by taking more photos, and you get better photos from one situation by taking more photos and getting rid of most of them. Digital also gives you immediate feedback, so you know more of what you _shouldn't_ do when you take a bad picture.
typical film look gives the picture the rare look i want.
You cant simulate this look, you always will see the difference.
_That_ on the other hand, is _definitely_ a point in favor of analog cameras. Maybe eventually the simulation is near-perfect, but certainly the flavor and style are likely influenced by the camera and how one uses it.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)
* Origin: Storm BBS (21:2/108)