I should add that no one is suggesting professional photographers with throughput requirements should switch to film. Digital makes life a lot easier in many wa

I should add that no one is suggesting professional photographers with throughput requirements should switch to film. Digital makes life a lot easier in many ways for under-pressure professionals. The only people who will shoot film these days are art photographers looking for either film textures or the way film alters their creative process, and amateur enthusiasts who enjoy shooting film mostly for process reasons. That's no different than a lot of other hobbies. (Why would you drive a vintage sports car, anyway? They're expensive, break down, and can't haul groceries for crap. By quantifiable objective data, they're terrible cars.) I'm not a professional photographer, but a fairly serious amateur - I broke 10k photos/year at peak, and have been published and done minor gallery shows. I'll shoot a few rolls of film a year, entirely for fun. I enjoy the process, and use it to impose restrictions on myself. (The last time I shot film, I was with a friend who was modeling for me. I told her we had 36 photos available, and that was that. It really made us think, rather than just blowing through 10x that many because we could.) If I need to shoot volume, or use studio lighting, or work in any sort of difficult lighting conditions, I'll use digital, absolutely. It's quite possible to shoot both digital and film, for different reasons, and not just be a pretentious hipster who doesn't care about "quantifiable objective data".