Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Watson View Post
From the article: "But if you really want to impose limits, a twin-lens reflex camera will force you to take your time."

I was hoping that someone who'd bother to write an article like this would know more. Clearly the author knows nothing of large format photography. Sigh...
But the very next paragraph of the article *does* talk about large format...

If you really want to impose limits, try LF. Outside of press cameras it's nearly impossible to do LF fast. The essence of modern LF is slow and deliberate.
...and says much the same thing (apart from the press cameras)!

To be fair, I had the same snap reaction: "TLRs are slow? Ha!"---but by the standards that the article's describing, yeah, I think it's a fair point.

The only beef I really had with the article is that it doesn't give enough credit to the fact that people used to do the same thing with point-and-shoot film cameras; not so much the machine-gun imaging, but looking at the camera rather than the thing photographed is a complaint quite a bit older than d*g*t*l. That quibble aside, though, I thought it was a provocative article that discussed film much more accurately than the norm, and correctly concentrated on the photographic process rather than on gear per se.