>>3151089>Care to post an example? This has never happened to me.Attached is the most recent example I can think of. I'm sure there have been others.
> The point is that it's the time investment which makes good photos and allows for improvement, not the number of times you hit the shutter.And the counterpoint I'm making is that the number of times you hit that shutter (assuming, yes, that you're actually putting some thought into it when you do so) is a much more effective way to invest your improving-your-photography time. Especially if you're a beginner and you're still in that phase where 99% of your shots are awful crap.
> in the last year I've spent about a tenth the price of a DSLR on all my film gear including cameras, developing, rolls and scanner.Tenth of the price of a brand new high-end DSLR, sure. Or even a brand new low-end DSLR. When you go used, though, a lot of that upfront-cost advantage goes away. DSLRs have been around long enough that you can get an old one on a site like
keh.com for under $100. Throw in a cheap film-era kit lens and you've got a usable camera for around $150. Won't have all of the modern bells and whistles, but neither will any film SLR you get
