Good morning, everyone. I have a spare two hours today, and I've had too much coffee. Going thru all the posts in this forum, some random thoughts came to mind.
There are some good, intelligent, rational, well thought-out arguments here for film, and a fair few for digital. Fair enough, we are a film forum. So a degree of well-intentioned bias against "the big bad D" is to be expected.
Some of us like film, some dislike digital, some like (or seem to dislike) both. Others like film more, like digital more, or like both equally. Each is different from the other and has its positives and negatives (pun intended). Know and learn both, but please, spare us the creating of fictitious arguments for or against either.
Digital is not crap. For color, it is now (and has been since the advent of high-quality cameras such as the Nikon D90 and D700 in 2008-2009) just as good as color negative or slide emulsions. Not to overlook, without the requirement of processing, mounting or fiddly printing.
I will never buy a 36.3MP FX-Format CMOS sensor however desirable this may be for rendering 69 shades of every color on the wheel, for the basic reason that, on a retirement income and preferring travel to collecting digital camera gear, I can't afford it. My current 10 to 12 MP Nikons do an adequate job for my needs. In the good old days, I used Panatomic-X film for almost all my photography, now and then Tri-X and, rarely, Super X. Now my D700 lets me select all these Eis and many more. Horses for courses.
Digital is less effort, but many digishooters have the regrettable habit of posting 1,257 shots of Baby Puss purring in a basket or 3,489 shots of the day at the beach with the grandsprogs. One friend put 14,000+ photos on his (boring) blog of his two weeks in Hawaii. Hasn't had any views and wonders why? A nice man but much too insecure to be told the truth... nobody cares. Ten or twenty shots, maybe. Thousands, go away!
As to what is the best cheese, well - what cheese do you like? Mousetrap or gorgonzola, an endless variety, in my case limited only by my budget, more than A$20 per kilogram is out price-wise, but with diligent shopping (I never cease to thank the gods of consumer heaven for having given us Aldi) I can often buy even the best and most expensive cheeses for much less than my price limit. The same applies to film and digicams.
Technology scares traditional analogers. I still have TIFFs I scanned in 2000 and I can easily retrieve and edit/print them. Hardware changes (often with improvements) with time. In sixteen years I've replaced all my image storage unitsls two times and am overdue for some new Western Digital portables. As my Italian hair stylist says about my reeding hairline, "is no-problema".
Overlooking the endless facile and poorly thought out arguments, I believe it is entirely possible that my grandkids' baby shots will be accessible in 2036, and with new technology, I or my son will easily produce film and paper images of my digisnaps. In this age, if there is a market for it, someone will invent it.
#37 has it pretty well right for me. Good and useful information. One of the best posts in the entire forum. Ditto #39. Sirius Glass has an incisive mind and is a fine communicator who makes us stop and ponder. Ditto Ditto #41, who always writes a wealth of interesting and thought-provoking information. #42 is the most apt one-liner, Alan always has the best good word for this particular moment.
If you prefer nice grain patterns, film is better. Grain is possible with digital, but with special software, usually a steep learning curve, and much fiddling on computers.
Ad nauseam can easily become ad nauseum and vice-versa...
Anyone who insists digi prints don't compare to analog doesn't know how to print, won't make the effort to learn to print properly, or may be color-blind.
Film does look different to digital. That's why I shoot color digital and black-and-white film. The tonal differences are obvious. I dislike scanning and allocate my po diligent care. I also have good enlargers and I enjoy my darkroom periods as precioumenttime away from the hurdy-gurdy of life's mundane demands.
Digital and film costs generally even out. Film and processing costs, true. Digital cameras with also reliable storage cards, a decent laptop and scanner and a good printer also cost, in fact heaps. Start upcosts for digital are high, for film and darkroom, usually less high, lots of used gear available OL. Balance our the two mediums and it all usually events out to quite close, unless you like to spend big on Leica monochromes or obscure yuppy emulsions and chemistry. Color neg films seem to me to be of the "one size fits all" variety. I've shot them all, and apart from slow or fast EI speeds, the results usually look the same. Only the color shift varies, but even then not by much.
To the "I disagree with this" posters, I will dare to say, please spare us the facile one-liners. Post your reasons. The "I just think that" comment are of little or no interest to anyone. Communicate!
I could go on, but this post would become a new complete post in itself. I could have stopped there, but of course I didn't...
Briefly briefly, why do I shoot film? I have the gear - my 1970s Nikkormats and my circa 2000 Contax Gs produce about equal results, the former are best for B&W and the latter ideal for color tones. I have the darkroom with two top of the range enlargers. Also a large fridge and a small freezer full of film. Films and chemistry are still available, though 120 film prices in AUS are now so high that I now seriously plan to give up MF.
Thank you all, for having given me so much good reading and such fun in responding.