Does the speed you work at make your work better or worse?

Many film based photographers claim, along with their “alt” printers, that slower makes better photographs. That digital, since it is so easy, so quick, it is necessarily bad. Many is less. Slower makes better imagery.

What proof, or demonstration do they offer? Maybe the argument means they don’t have to produce as much. They get to spend more time in chat rooms and less time photographing.

I suppose they’ve never considered that in the days of film, that 35mm shooters heard the same thing from 8×10 users. That is, that 35 made lousy pictures therefore made lousy photographers. I used both, almost daily. During those times I used to remark that I often shot 35 to use less film. That 8×10 used as much film for One shot as 35 mm did to make 36 shots. This meant that using 35 I could become at least 36 times better a photographer than when I was using an 8×10.

It didn’t seem to sink in.