Re: That Worn-Out, Old "Film vs. Digital" Debate

The debate is already over and the transition is moving even faster than 
most people expected.  For the amateur market the casual snapshooter has 
been the economic driving force forever.  Most of the 4x6 prints which 
have been made really never needed to see the light of day!  Almost 
nobody is the developed world uses film for casual photography today.

In much of the professional world the situation is the same.  Newspapers 
ditched their darkrooms and were glad to do so.  The film which is used 
professionally almost all is on it's way to a digital scanner for final 
printing and reproduction.  Slides have been replaced by digital 
projectors, and this is a good thing because the very act of projecting 
slides degraded their dyes.

The debate is already over.  Film will continue as a small niche product 
for special applications or special artistic needs just as vacuum tubes 
are still around and a few people make tintypes.

I drug my heals for a very long time and even though I was smart a few 
years ago when I picked up some amazing lenses for my vintage Minolta 
35mm equipment for next to nothing.  I still enjoy using the stuff for a 
few special purposes, but the majority of my needs are best met by 
digital equipment and a digital workflow.  Compared to the wet darkroom 
my "digital darkroom" consisting of Photoshop CS and an EPSON 2200 is a 
great pleasure to use.

The processing industry is adapting to the digital imaging world by 
printing digital files onto silver paper.  This results in a lot less 
waste as the non-keeper photos are not being printed very often any more.

Once you are working in a digital darkroom it is much, much easier to 
start with a digital file instead of film.

John