for me, it boils down to this:
"different strokes for different folks"
"different tools for different people"
I don't poo-poo digital, even though my friends ask me why I just don't use their P&S to take the picture. I have started taking pictures, well more, portraits, of those same friends, on film.
so far, they've really liked what they've seen. now they don't question my methods, only ask how long it'll take for me to get them a contact sheet so they can see what I shot. that makes me excited to shoot film more. just that sense of anticipation, not really knowing EXACTLY what you got. maybe, maybe, you got the shot you were hoping for, sometimes not. But when that happens, another shot shows itself to you, and you decide sometimes that you prefer that one.
I like the sense of mystery. And for me, I KNOW WHAT I'M GOING TO GET, EVEN BEFORE I TRIP THE SHUTTER.
this comes from testing, and analyzing of my methods and equipment, maximizing the most of it I can to get what I want.
I also prefer the 'look' of film grain vs digital noise. For me, pictures can't be made of squares, pixels, whatever you call them.
Now, I am using the hybrid method (shooting film, generally 4x5 or 6x7cm --> then scanning and doing minor corrections in PS)
even though I'm 21, and having grown up with the rise of the computer to what it is capable of today, I cannot sit in front of one, I'm actually writing this reply in 3 segments stretched so far over a 25 minute period, shows how I can't sit in front of a screen for long )
Well, now that I'm coming up on 45 minutes to complete this somehow simple reply, one that many may snicker at, but think where I'm coming from, not from the standpoint of a "snapshooter", but of an aspiring artist.
have people given up oil or watercolor painting even though the computer may be able to produce "superior" results? NO...
in the end, its the image that matters. Whether you're being paid thousands of dollars to shoot a campaign for a fashion company, using the best lighting and camera equipment; or taking a picture on your vacation. in the end, if you can't get the image, You're not worth a damn. and you've just wasted your time. I don't care to waste time anymore, just enjoy the time I have left here. Maximizing what I have available to me.
so, I'll be using film for as long as I can. At least for my personal work. Professional(in the future, after finishing school), I can't be as sure. But none of us can tell the future. We can only speculate. I love the ease of curves adjustment with PS though. Its absolutely tremendous. Much easier than having to make multiple contrast masks and having to worry about pin registration and all that, I've done it. But for now, my little P&S Nikon will suffice for ebay photos, but for my work I want to remember, it will be on film.
oh... cost is another reason for me too. I got 24 10sht boxes of 4x5 Portra 400nc a few months back, and so far have gone through 2 boxes, working on the 3rd now. I paid $10 per box. 240 shots for 240 dollars. 95% will be keepers. To me, this is cheaper than digital. I have lenses that are older than me by 3x, and even if I don't use them every day, sometimes I don't use them for months, they still wait for me to use them, and to create pictures in a wonderful way that they only can. Scanning is the hard part financially. $40-100 per drum scan(that's with a bulk discount) adds up really fast, and I have to be really choosy about which ones I want scanned at the moment. My entire 4x5 kit I accrued over the last 2 years totaled less than 2 grand. And I have some great glass, schneider's, fuji's, and a caltar. All are top-notch, and when used properly, produce stellar results. Pricing a 5d II(is that what its called?) on B&h, sheesh, body only is $2700 + lenses, say, another 2-3 grand. I could buy a Mac pro and a nice used scanner for that, and still have some left over
phew.... that took almost an hour. Off to bed now, shooting in the am tomorrow.
Night everyone, blessings