Possibilties? Oh well, we can't have that in art, now can we?
Let's talk some heavy taxes on film. We want our photographers to be better after all.
Or perhaps what photography really needs is a Ministry of Photography to control the distribution of cameras, as after all, a year long waiting list just for a hearing before the tribunal to state your case of why you should be issued one instant camera per month would surely weed out all but the most serious would-be photographers.
While we're at it, we could use more censorship. After all, there's nothing like the threat of being carted off in the middle of the night to some secret political prison to make the artist creative about trying to be expressive without offending the authorities, right?
OK, that's hyberpole, but that's that path blazed by the argument that in some way the economic pressure of shooting film is a virtue while the liberation from it in digital is bad. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but by and large we don't want be under that pressure from the outside. An individual artist might make a personal choice to self-impose limits in order to jog the creative juices, but that's a personal choice valid only for that individual at that time. Feel you're better shooting just film? No problem, but that's an issue with the photographer, not the hardware.
Ultimately, art is all about possibilities and freedom, including the freedom to make what others think is garbage. Making the best of the possibilities is a matter of individual discipline, but even if an amateur is undisciplined... well, so what? Isn't one of the basic virtues of the free society the right for people to screw around how they want long as they're not hurting anybody?
Who says knee jerk peer review is what determines what's a good photograph and what's not anyway?