professorman wrote in post #16224989
Film is a novelty. Its like booting up that old dial up internet computer, and try using it. Sure, it was great then, but today, why bother? Its nice to play with. Its fun to 'see if you got it' and push yourself, but at the end of the day, is it anything more than a toy in this modern age?
Well, it's true, why play the piano or use your hands to sculpt pottery when there are digital solutions to all of this. And why would anyone enjoy the process of cooking, when there are much more efficient options.
Wow, that painting by Rembrandt, a mere novelty; that composition by Mozart, a mere novelty, and of course, that photo by Ansel Adams, a mere novelty…only that which is new can be worthwhile (thus ensuring that anything I use or create today will effectively be trivial "tomorrow").
Film is a medium, not a technological statement, and to flippantly reduce it to some anachronistic "toy" is to flippantly write off all of the exceptional photographers who used film to create equally exceptional photographs that, to this day, remain unsurpassed. Art does not need the ever evolving output of modernity to flourish, and any suggestion otherwise is staggeringly ignorant.
Anyway, for the OP, yes, I switched from digital to film and I couldn't be happier: for more details, please see my verbosely posited viewpoints:
http://27-303.tumblr.com/post/31017936386/film (Why Film)
Need not say more, so I'm out, but if the OP or others want to PM, please feel free. Really, people who argue against choice, particularly in the arts, are the useless dullards of the world.