File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Question /p/:
How feasible are regular SLRs in this day and age? It's just that I figure that the accessibility of DSLRs lead to an increase of pseudo-photographers who now have nothing to lose when they take photos. Unlike before, when you had no idea how a photo would come out until you got it developed, kids these days can simply delete photos and photoshop them until they pass as something reasonable. Before, you had to spend time and money perfecting the craft, but now all you have to do point at the camera and beg.

Don't get me wrong, for actual professionals DSLRs are a godsend, and I'm not bagging people with a legitimate interest in photography, but something just irks me about people who think it's the equipment that makes the photograph and talent/dedication can be digitally replaced.

pic related, the guy can probably do things with a disposable camera you can only dream of
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
I loves me some DSLR, but I always have a SLR around with tri-x ready to go. It's like reloading bullets, not too much advantage in it, but it's a nice way to pass the time. Also, velvia 50 FTW, too bad its about 16$ for a roll of film + local processing.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
Your first sentence and the rest of your post are completely unrelated. Yes, digital technology means there are far more idiots out there who can pretend to be photographers. But it doesn't prevent your old film camera from being just as effective of a picture taking tool as it was last week, or the day it was made.

So yes they're feasible tools for photography, and yes those faggots piss me off too.
>> Anonymous
i have a digital bridge cam and an old chinon slr, and i'd prefer the chinon, but i can't afford the film and processing, that's why i shoot with digital. soon as i get some money i'll buy some lenses and switch to film camera.
>> Haddock !!xREx2m9lgBs
As feasible as they've always been.