In article , Scott Schuckert
wrote:

nothing prevents you from slowing down and thinking with digital.

Prevents? No. Nothing prevents a heroin addict from simply not picking
up the next needle. But, at least for some people, it's very very hard.

a very bad analogy. heroin is a physical addiction. photography is not.

back to the point, digital is *just* as slow as film, or it can be
significantly faster. the choice is entirely up to the photographer.

the advantage of digital is you *aren't* forced to be slow. should
something unexpected happen, you *can* shoot fast, then go back to slow
or anywhere in between. it's *significantly* more flexible, allowing
for *more* opportunities, not less.

there is no advantage to slow. it's just an excuse to be stuck in the
past.

My first serious photography "project" was taking photos at the 1963
Worlds Fair; I carried two cameras, so I could shoot B&W and color at
will. Looking around the room, the majority of images I've chosen for
my walls are from my beloved Graphic View II (4X5).

today, one camera could do what that camera did and a whole lot better.

I'm aware my current digital equipment is almost up to the task,
technically.

then you're misinformed.

today's digital equipment blows away what existed in 1963, and with
just *one* camera, not two.

I've tried to slow down and put more care into my digital
images, but have been unsuccessful - it just doesn't seem "real" to me.
You have no consequences for bad images, because there's literally no
investment.

that's *your* shortcoming, not a problem with digital.

next time, bring a 128 megabyte card, which can hold around a
half-dozen raw files with a typical modern slr.

better yet, bring a 16-32 meg card which can hold only *one* raw file
(depending on camera).

that should slow you down.

I would put it down to a lack of flexibility in my ancient head,

yep.

BUT -
I mentor for a local college newspaper. The quality of photography
there has dropped radically since they closed their darkroom and went
all digital. The kids can't even compose properly, let alone work with
lighting, selective focus, or anything else.

that's not a flaw of digital.

i'm sure some of them can compose quite well, but for a newspaper, that
isn't as important as capturing *the* moment.

And when I try to coach
them on improving, they literally don't see the difference. "It's good
enough - who's going to pay that much attention to s picture?"

they're right.

they're newspaper photographers, not artistic photographers.

go talk to people in the art department.

That's why there's a loaded film camera on my desk right now, and I've
started measuring the spare room for a darkroom.

in other words, you're stuck in the past.