>>4108115False. The only persons in the wrong itt are unhinged film fanatics blinded by their ignorance of digital photographic technology and sadly lacking in understanding of its functioning. I get it, I do. Put a K1000 in a young adult's hands after they have been dicking with phones to take pictures since childhood no doubt becomes a revolutionary experience for them. That doesn't elevate film and antiquated mechanical cameras to a level of superiority. I also understand how it must be for many of these young adults, who believe they have discovered some secret lost treasure of photography within film. To be faced with the fact nothing they believe in makes them or their cherished mechanical technology special snowflakes in the blizzard of photography must be awful.
I am going to say it again just to be clear. Digital cameras not only take great pictures they are capable of taking unique pictures too. Twenty five years of digital cameras are more relevant today than they were as they were produced as a photographer can now go back and cherry pick models they enjoy. No one in their right mind if educated in digital camera technology can look back over 25 years of cameras and say, "Yep, Every one of those cameras is the same. The only ones that matter are the current line of cameras sold in stores today because everything made yesterday is shit. By the way did you know, new digital cameras take the same pictures twenty five year old cameras took. Its true. All you need is to tweak a few settings in photoshop." That is literally what is said up thread. Any one who claims this either uneducated, inexperienced, literally retarded and/or flat out blinded by their own arrogance.
