The author begins by admitting that most of the former reasons given for digital's supposed inferiority no longer exist. The author even notes that this leaves the luddites grasping for words to describe the 'thing' about film that makes it 'better' than digital for them. Then he does it himself.
That's a statement made as if it were objective fact, but in reality, it's just one of those 'how I feel' kind of statements. In what objective way is film 'more human' than digital?
He then builds on this nonsensical statement to fashion an argument, which is unfortunately just a rehash of all the idiocy he decried in his introduction.
Digital process can be as slow as you like. No one is forced to chimp, no one is forced to shoot quickly. You can take your time and go as slowly as you like, leave the LCD off and suffer the consequences of poor choices in exposure and focus and framing if that's what you feel makes you a better person or photographer.
This is a statement utterly without meaning. It's just words. He might as well say that driving a Chevy makes him more of who he is, whilst driving a Ford would be a complete travesty to his inner being. Yeah, whatever.
Gotta go with Joe here. It's crap. Navel-gazing, angst-ridden, crap. First he says how terrible it is that digital-haters have lost all their technical reasons for rejecting digital and have to play all namby-pamby 'feelings' and then he does just that. Ick. I want my five minutes back for having read it.
