Ken Rockwell is once again being Ken Rockwell. He is just so full of confidence and spews such large overgeneralizations that any little kernel of truth he may

Ken Rockwell is once again being Ken Rockwell. He is just so full of confidence and spews such large overgeneralizations that any little kernel of truth he may have started with soon disappears in a pile of bullshit. No film is not forever, film stock goes bad too. One very good example are the dozen of famous classic movies for which no good quality print remain (i.e., many of the hitchhock films). Digital formats may change often but digital data is much easier to copy and transmit between formats which makes it much easier to protect and store without losing quality. And film is not inherently more truthful than digital data. Film also depends on sensing and is subject to sensory errors. For example different types of color film can render the same scene very differently. Currently, digital sensores are not as accurate as film in terms of details but this may change. One ironic thing is that one of the main reason raw formats are not "truthful" as Ken Rockwell says is actually partially Ken Rockwell's fault. See reviewers like Ken have been so obssessed with noise in digital cameras, that camera manufacturers have started to use noise reduction algorithms before the raw stage so that their images will show up better in online reviews (such as the ones that appear on Ken Rockwell's site). This of course is not good news because almost all noise reduction results in loss of detail, and a raw image should be free of noise reduction because it should be the image provided by the camera sensor as faithfully as possible. A user can always apply noise reduction later.