I am the latter. I am a guy that enjoys photography as a hobby and IMO the digital camera is one of the best learning tools available. I like instantly knowing if my adjustments worked or not.

Back 20 years ago, I had an SLR 35mm camera and it was hard to keep track of how I shot any particular picture and by the time I got my pics back, it was a crap shoot weather they came out good or not. There was also considerable cost involved when paying developing fees for potentially bad pictures.

In this digital era, I know instantly what my camera is doing. For someone like me that has no formal training, I enjoy trying different shooting modes and learning what they do. I can read thousands of articles and forum posts about what the different settings do but until I try them myself, I don't really learn.

The article makes a valid point about someone like myself but I don't take pictures to make a living, I just do it for personal satisfaction. I think nothing of going out all day and taking 400 shots to produce maybe 15 that I really like but like I mentioned earlier it only costs me my time not any $, and it is a labor of love for me...

Just my $.02

Digital is easy because you can put it on auto and shoot away. Just because there are a million photos out there does not preclude technique and art. It doesn't take much know how to use a DSLR. It does to use it and really make it work for you as a tool. Snapshots for one are not art. Not only must one learn how to use the tool, one must learn the photographic art. Above that is that creative genius that some have and well, some just don't.

Right now I feel like I'm at the stage just beyond shooting auto where I'm selecting either shutter or aperture priority and working on focus. Got a long way to go. I was a pretty good film photographer when I did everything manually, had to think, conserve my resources and get the best shots possible. I also had great subjects back then.....my kids.

Have you been published in National Geographic? I suspect that you really don't know how critical Nat Geo is when the editor culls the images.

Back in the film days the vast majority of people with cameras really knew nothing of craft. Today it's the same. Yes most people can take pictures and share them on the internet, but very few, including the vast majority here on the Hog, know enough craft to make a photograph.

The digital camera has destroyed nothing, the problem is our own demand for instant gratification. Here's a simple comparison: how many homes built today will last the time that homes built 300 years ago, or longer, will last. Craft seems to have been lost in all things.

Speaking about homes, they don't build them like they used to and thank heaven. I've been in many older homes and the construction was horrible. Yes many old mansions appeared to be built well, but they weren't. In the old days they just used a lot of masonry and wood. the framing methods were aboriginal. Construction lumber was green. The wealthy built the houses that remain, and only because they spent so much money on them, but the techniques of construction were ancient. Today's technology makes much better houses, that is if they are designed properly and constructive properly.

Construction lumber is still green. It comes from the lumber mill with a moisture content up in the 30-50% range. Depending on your climate, it will eventually settle in the 5-15% range. Here in San Diego it's so difficult to get a straight piece of lumber if it's been at Home Depot too long because it has dried to the 5-7% range in our desert climate.

Considering how slow construction was many decades ago compared to how rapidly a house can be built now, the old days probably had lumber that wasn't as green since it sat at the construction site so long and reached an equilibrium with the environment.

In today's construction, lumber rarely sits out at the construction site. They order and deliver on an "as needed" basis so it doesn't sit around where it can be subject to damage and theft.

You're right about a lot of that.. If you're really critical you have to handpick your lumber. I never buy any lumber at Home Depot. The old construction lumber if it had stabilized, was probably warped. The old builders didn't know anything about camber in lumber, so they used anything any which way!
And they used balloon framing with warped lumber. I've checked houses that had ledger strips that had shrunk of off the balloon framing, and the framing was failing. Also there was a lot of shrinkage in the framing in the old days that caused headers and floors to sag and frame structures to warp. Again all techniques can be usable, however the user must be critical of every phase, be it photography or construction.

We don't use balloon framing in earthquake country.........lol

If you want to see shrinkage disasters, sagging headers, sagging floors, warped walls, windows and doors that won't open or close properly (in new construction!), head on out to San Diego and I'll give you a tour. Even in newly built 15,000-SF, $6 million Rancho Santa Fe home, it's horrible. I'm a home inspector by profession so I get to see it all, but I also often get taken to task by people buying new homes because they think the place is falling apart and want me to help them get a huge discount on the price. That's about the only time in my life that I've ever said, "Not my job." I'm just documenting the condition. After that, it's a fight between the buyer's and seller's Realtors as far as the final price goes.