>>3372631That dude can’t possibly be right because he’s constructed an argument so poorly that the correctness of it can’t be evaluated.
For example, he says DSLR photos are soulless, then gives three examples. Are they all meant to display soullessness? Are only some? The third example he gives (
>>3372466) are clearly film photos, so is he saying those are soulless and thus disproving the argument he’s trying to make?
What even does he mean by soulless? Is he just defining it circularly as that property which analog photos have but digital photos do not? Is he saying that all digital photos lack soul, that all photographers who started with digital lack soul, that you can take photos with soul if you start with film and then switch to digital?
His whole position is a jumbled mess. The sort of position I’d expect from someone who’s such a gearfag that they think whether you’re recording an image on silver grains or silicon photosites has a fundamental effect on the possibility of artistic output. It’s a position someone would only take if their level of artistic skill is so low that they feel a need to latch onto some superficial aspect of it as making them better than everyone else because otherwise their ego would be forced to shrivel in the cold light of the truth that they’re not special.
The truth of the matter is that a good photographer will take good photos on either digital or film, and a bad photographer will take bad photos on either digital or film. There’s no inherent quality of soul that one provides and the other doesn’t, and there’s no virtue in practicing by *taking fewer photos*, even if you do think about them more beforehand.
