So film is cheap then
So your arguments are that film takes less than an hour to develop and that it is cheap. Well, digital takes under a second to see if the shot is any good, digital cameras are cheap too and don't require you to have the space for developing in. I have a DSLR that can take old minolta lenses and I can pick those up dirt cheap on ebay too.

I don't remember bleating, I remember asking why it was felt that film was better. I didn't diss film or say it was a waste of time. Kudos to you if that's the direction your hobby takes you, but for me I prefer to spend my time mastering compostion and lighting, not learning which chemical formula yeilds the most accurate rendition.

Obviously a medium format film camera will blow away a DSLR. That's hardly like for like though is it? And really how many of us are going to go for a medium format film camera because a dslr is too expensive?

As to how much digital will be around in ten years, I can tell you every one of my 20,000+ images will be, as several thousand of those are over a decade old already. I back my photos up in several places and my children will each take a copy when I die. My digital images will be around in a hundred years' time. The shots I took on film when I left school 20 years ago are long gone, lost in a house move somewhere along the line.
(Booce, Fri 5 Nov 2010, 15:49, Reply)