Reply to comment

I just came back from a rather long world tour on which I primarily shot on film (gasp!) using my old rangefinder (second gasp!).  A week later, having returned and processed about 30 odd rolls of film, we chatted online about where we were at with our photography.

He was using a digital SLR, whilst one generation old, was still recognised as having rather good image quality (a Canon 5D). His assertion was that he wasn't good enough for a better camera.  The assertion that to upgrade, if all other requirements are met, are based on user's ability is a rather sensible one.  I know lots of people who assert that they need this lens or that body feature to get this type of photo -- so to not have that argument was refreshing.  Generally these are people who are more interested in the gear than the photos.

There was one flaw to this idea however, from my point of view.  Learning is also partially about incentives -- you tend to learn quicker if your mistakes hurt a lot more.  This is where digital photography fails somewhat.  If you're shooting film and you get it wrong: you tend to learn rather quickly.  If you shoot digital and you get it wrong: the trash can is just a button click away (and by that stage, as the incentive isn't sufficiently strong enough, you'll probably put up with doing that again).  For example, how many times have you over exposed a photo digitally, to chimp at the histogram, trash it, and take it again?   With film that isn't an option: you just have to learn how the meter works and deal with it next time...