I've been wondering if the debate about which is better, film or digital, is similar to the old debate about whether PCs are better than Macs. Or, maybe it's like the debates over LPs versus CDs, or Beta versus VHS. Or, to go from the sublime to the ridiculous, Hellmann's versus Miracle Wip.
It all depends on what your intended output destination is and how many back roads you have to take to get there. I think that Photographers who are serious about their art will still use film for the really important shots. Film-based photography draws upon over a hundred years of experience and wisdom about what makes a good exposure. Most modern lenses are still built for film capture. The chemically-based image is dense with detail. It has "latitude". One must remember that most of the dialog boxes, tools, and gadgets that are found in image editing software are high-tech analogs to the hands-ons darkroom techniques.
There are books written on this subject. But, if you want to know where DFM stands of the subject, here it is. Digital capture and workflow is still in its infancy. That's one of the reasons I still shoot film for the formal shots and will continue to, for the foreseeable future. I will submit more on this subject. Although I shoot using both technolgies, film is still the best.
