Sorry for the error here is the reply in full. On a base level film still captures three times the info that digital does. Digital capture in any case renders grain and texture different on the minute level. This is what bother some art photographers but for most purposes digital is ok as soon as the price comes down to a level that is more affodable for the quality pro cameras. The also is the inertia from: film camera aren't broken, why fix them with digital? I of course prefer film because that is what i know and what I am set up to do. I like having an original that I can see where I have a full gamut of colors and am not restricted by smaller gamut of the monitor. With digital photography you only get what the monitor see. I also like having a physical object - slides that are different than the elctronic forms that are harder to destroy than with the erronous click of the button. Even Hollywood movies which are filmed digitaly are distributed on film. Why? Because the digial projectors cost $150,000+ and for a seven screen movie house this would mean over a million dollars in investment which is a hunk of change to do the same thing that is already being done by film projectors. But when prices come down alot more you'll see more digital cameras in pro hands.
