I strongly agreed before I even read the argument, despite not being a photographer or into photography at all. What I am, however, is an absolute *nerd* over old technology. It fascinates me to no end to play with an old piece of tech -- to use it like people would have used it back in the day, to imagine how they must have felt about it when it first came out, and to even take it apart and examine what makes it work. An old 35mm film camera would be no exception -- I've just yet to get my hands on one. I'm also partial to physical media because of the more tangible, interactive *feel* of using something like a film camera, or a vinyl record player, or an actual paper book. Their digital versions are more convenient, true -- but that also makes the user experience feel hollow, because when you can simply "one and done" things in under a second by tapping on a screen, it loses the feeling of effort behind setting up your camera, or positioning the needle on a vinyl record, or flipping through the pages in a book. It's missing those satisfying, kinesthetic interactions that we *lack so hard* these days, that we had to invent fidget toys to take their place. Now, after *reading* your argument: I 100% agree. It all goes back to that need for effort -- the process of adjusting your camera settings, focusing the lens, winding the film, lining up your shot, shooting it, anxiously awaiting its development, and finally discovering how it all turned out... you had to savor every moment, and the memories you successfully captured on film became precious to you, because it was *so hard* to capture that perfect shot -- and like you said, you only had a limited amount of shots in which to do it. So when you turned out a failed image, it *burned*, and it taught you to be more careful, because film rolls were too expensive to keep wasting shots like that. Digital cameras remove that experience entirely. So, naturally, most people don't really think that much about taking a picture. They pull up the app, snap a series of shots because they know they'll get at least *one* that's halfway usable, they'll maybe glance at the pic before they put the phone away (usually not), and then they go on about their day, never thinking about it again. It's an entirely thoughtless process for most people, because the phone does 99% of the work upfront -- it comes pre-programmed with optimal settings on default, it autofocuses the lens, it adjusts the lighting, and it displays a live preview of the shot so the user can instantly adjust and retake *indefinitely* if needed. The risk-and-reward aspect of taking a picture is entirely gone -- and the sad part is, most people will never be aware of what they're missing out on. People also take for granted that they have the tools and ability to take a picture in the first place, because back in the day, you had to buy a dedicated, stand-alone device that *only* took pictures -- there was no all-in-one miracle device that made calls, gave you instant access to a *hundred-thousand encyclopedias* worth of information, *and* took pictures, too. And cameras were *expensive*, so most people I knew didn't even have one. But now, cameras come standard on most smart devices, and they're so common that they're almost an afterthought which manufacturers include just because people *expect* to have them as a *basic* feature. So yeah, you make a great case for your argument, and even though I'm not into photography, I can totally see how someone could get addicted to snapping pics with an old 35mm (or even a new one!? I just looked up 35mm cameras on Google, and apparently [they still make these in 2021] (https://www.photoworkout.com/best-film-cameras/)!?) Great argument!

Love this argument...