I really don't agree. Are you saying that the older minds are using film because it's all they know, and they are not computer literate? I think they are more clever than you give them credit. The big problem with digital is it's difficult to get the end result to look unique with a bit of mojo and atmosphere. If you're not careful it can look like everybody else's work.
No, I am saying that *some* of them use film, because that is what they know. *Some* are making the transition, *some* are capable of doing so, but choose not to. *Some* would never be able to do as well with digital as with film.
There is also the category with those who know how to do film, have learned how to do digital, but are grumpy all the way. That would be big cooter
I am saying that those who already know film are generally biased. They may not be unfair, but they knew and loved the one before the other came and it is almost impossible to look at the situation with a virgin mind under those circumstances. Digital will really come into its own when the new generations don't know film or digital, are presented with both, and make their choice. Then we will truly know which medium has a stronger following, due to its own virtues.
By the way, I didn't mention this in the first post, but aside from the fact that some pros want film looks in the digital workflow, from the manufacturer side they have to look at the business case for doing so. Generally, people want it, but if they are already paying X-thousand Dollars for their back, they probably won't pay more for such a solution. They will want it included, due to the already high price. This almost certainly makes it non-viable. However, as an after-market solution from companies like (or better than) Adobe, it could easily make sense. Then there will be no free lunch, however.
With film it's easier, just choose the equipment and film stock to give you the result you require. As everybody gets excited about the latest sharpest expensive lens from Leica/Schneider/Zeiss or whoever I'm just buying older lenses, real cheap they are too.
The number of films X the number of equipment choices is not likely to give you a larger number of possibilities than all the digital tools which are now available.
I think it is too easy to dismiss digital and say that film is great. However, digital has a very, very large number of advantages which it is all too easy to forget, and it is impossible to screw the clock back. Digital happened, all that is left for you to do is to find a new spot to stand.
But this discussion is sooooooooooooooo old. The only reason it keeps coming back is that film lovers keep complain that film is better than digital. To them I say, don't complain, use it.
Those John Hurt portraits from Phil Poynter are just great, I'd be interested to know if they are film.
You mean you can't tell!?!? (I am not trying to be an ass, just making a point here.)
