Oh yeah, I'm sold!! So much more fun to spend 15 minutes in photoshop than to get out and take pictures! Sly
Or an hour and a half in the darkroom.
Look, we all feel threatened by digital photography because frankly we're afraid we'll see more films and chemicals disappear as a consequence of it. This doesn't invalidate it as a medium. It's a different way of working. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with it (except for the obvious fact that it's got no soul and it cheapens all of your photography and teaches new photographers to be memory-card filling automatons who shoot 1000 images in an outing and then reduce photography to sorting through the 99.9% crap to get the two or three keepers ).
There's just nothing good that can come out of these knee-jerk reactions to digital photographic techinques though. I think it's obvious looking at that guy's results that it's nothing like an actual crappy film camera. But it is what it is, and if it helps someone brilliantly express their creative impulses then the world is better off for it.
In Michael Grecco's first book, he wrote a fair bit about loving the the look of a Holga/Diana (which he was using for personal work) BUT he also had to deliver dependably on time and on budget. So he shot with a 'blad and did the rest in the darkroom. It ended up being a "signature" style of image that clients like "Entertainment Weekly" requested again and again.
Personally, I haven't seen much original toy camera exploration since Rexroth's IOWA. YMMV. It's a "look," a fixed mannerism. Exactly what computers excel at.
Not to bash digital photography, but it DOES seem to be a whole lot of work that would be saved by just using a d*mn Holga. It always amuses me at my job in a 1 hour lab how people can get better pictures from a quality (relatively speaking) disposable camera than a low-end digicam.