If you look at my photos (I included a link to my black & white book and many of my stories on Medium are illustrated with my photos — all are digital), you will see that I not only like digital photography, I embrace it. When digital cameras first came out I resisted. They seemed more like toys and the quality of the images was poor. Then Sony bought Minolta, licensed Zeiss lenses and produced cameras with amazingly high resolution through brilliant software on powerful chips. Photoshop came along making it possible to improve the images even more, then Apple’s Aperture made it easy to organize them and edit them. (I hate Apple for discontinuing Aperture.) I have thousands of photos in my digital vaults. Could I have done all that with film? Maybe. Would I? Of course not. Been there, done that. In publishing (except some photo magazines, of course), no one cares what camera or lens or software you use, the editor cares about the image: does it capture the attention of the viewer? Does it enhance the story? Does it tell a story? My point is that digital photography makes it much easier (at least for me) to focus on the image and not the dozens of bells and whistles on a camera. In the rare case I need bells or whistles I ring them or blow them in post production! A good photographer needs a good eye, not a hassle with equipment. There are photographers who are brilliant with film, swear by film, but it is their images that make them famous.