It's a big debate you open, but I understand your personal reasoning Jonathan.
I like many have the privilage to look at the film vs digital debate from an objective point of view too.
We still get a healthy number of hobbyists, semi and pro photographers coming into the shop buying film chemistry and processing 35mm, medium and large format alike. We also get a massive number of seriuos digital users in the shop too.
The reason for film;
Personally a like 35mm film, but not because I consider it better quality than digital. No, I actually enjoy developing those transparency films through my processor and seeing those results. It's an age old technigue by today's standard's, and it's certainly not the quickest or cost effective work flow solution. The point is tho, part of my hobby I enjoy is the film processing part of it all. I can then scan those images, knowing I can always go back to them at a later date as I have done with many of my images in my gallery.
Now to the reason for digital;
A prime reason behind the explosion of digital media can be seen using my wife as an example, but is common I'm sure for many many other users...
Up until recently, Jacky used Pentax based 35mm film kit, took pictures, normally colour print, finished the film, had them developed, got them back to sift through which prints she liked etc....I bought her a digi SLR for her birthday...she hasn't put it down! Reason being I don't think just that it's a new toy, but she is a heavier computer user than me, now enjoys taking photos and looking at them instantly, can see where she might improve a shot, retake it, upload it instantly....all with the enjoyment ultimately of photography. I don't consider her photography any lesser than mine, it's just she doesn't particularly get my enjoyment from siting upstairs in the spare bedroom with the processor going! (can't see why??!)
The photography hobby is different things to different people.
Regarding the quality and size aspect of film vs digital;
With limited budget, yes, film has the edge when considering the initial outlay price, particualrly where medium and large format is concerned.
However, with a larger budget possible, there is no quality argument for film...it is pure noncence to rule out digital totally, even for the big billboard advertising quality images. Companies like Leaf, PhaseOne among others specialist in large digi backs, 60 megapixel is the norm, software enabling larger file sizes to be made even bigger plus high powered hardware are now commonplace.
In an industry that requires freeflow work and fast results digital is beginning to come out tops. A company that can afford it will dump old obsolete digi kit and buy the new upgrade....we saw it with the big news and sports photo agencies, and we'll probably see it with many studios up and down the high street too.
However, my personal view is your 20+ year old film camera can be 'upgraded' every time you put the new emulsion in!....just as long as you don't mind using the older design lenses etc!
Ho hum...I could waffle on for an age....but I got to stop now!....the summary for me is both have a place, but one thing is...digital has meant more and more people have gotten envolved in photography.
that's only got to be a good thing
|