..?
I recently read a story about a war photographer in Afghanistan who had some trouble keeping up with his hardware's need for infrastructure: specifically, connectivity and a steady supply of electrons for his batteries and laptop computer. He had to take every opportunity he could to charge his equipment from generators and trucks as he could, and evidently spent a lot of his time doing that.
Sure, even so, he could get a bunch more exposures on digital than he would on film, but if he'd used a good film camera, I think he could have spent more time and concentration on getting good shots, rather than having to chase electrons. I'd still have a digital camera handy, for stuff that needs to be shot and distributed, like, RIGHT NOW... but having an older technology, less reliant on being on-grid, seems like it could be handy.
Sure, they're probably doing just fine, but I'd started writing a story about a guy, and I wanted to make analog photography more relevant and necessary for him. The easiest way to do that was to muck about with infrastructure, make it so he's prevented from having easy access to power, etc. so it becomes a semi-post-apocalyptic story (maybe a solar storm, EMP, official crackdown, etc.) with the main character taking it upon himself to record whatever he can for posterity.
As he can't use his pro digital gear so much anymore, he turns to his dusty old collection of film cameras and a pile of expired b&w film.
Just a pile of thoughts. I'm not trying to start a debate, just lookin' to toss something out for general discussion.