First, the attitudes around film v digital in still photography don’t have significant overlap with that of motion photography. Trying to clump the two togethe

First, the attitudes around film v digital in still photography don’t have significant overlap with that of motion photography. Trying to clump the two together with a smug superiority is a misfire. The separation increases when talking about hobby/art still photography and comparing it to commercial cinema. In fact, decommissioning of cinema film has been a boon for the quirky hobby photography market. The superior process is the process that works for the person doing it. A photograph is ‘technically superior’ than a painted portrait but it is not a replacement. > “Note that a Canon 40D, an APS-C camera that came out in 2007, had the image quality of medium format film, with greater dynamic range.” Yeah, no it absolutely did not. It was 10 noisy megapixels and I have had one since it came out. The 5Dmk2 was close enough to be equivalent if you didn’t like grain. Also, a great deal of 40Ds just broke for no reason while sitting quietly in the shelf, quite literally dead. I have unmaintained cameras from the 60s that work fine. Long before digital was a high fidelity choice, plenty of people intentionally chose ‘inferior’ video formats because they wanted the look it gave. People sometimes cut and paste with scissors and magazine pages, even if Photoshop is ‘superior.’