It seems to me that the field of photography is finally experiencing that which other various fields that involve at least a modicum of creativity have already experienced. As has been pointed out, computers have "replaced" typewriters (and to that I say, "Oh yeah? It's still easier to type up a 3x5 card on a typewriter than a computer."), CDs have replaced vinyl, transistors have replaced tubes, electrified and even digitized musical instruments have replaced acoustic instruments, imaging software and tablets have replaced the paintbrush and canvas, email and IM-ing have replaced the art of letter writing, etc. etc.
And yet in every instance cited above, the older methods and technologies not only survive but many continue to thrive, and others are often experiencing something of a rebirth. We should have no reason to expect photography to be any different.
It is my personal opinion that digital photography has finally reached a level of maturation such that further improvements will not be as significant in scope as those which have occurred over the past several years. I mean, is a 30mp sensor going to dramatically improve images over a 20mp sensor the way a 12mp sensor improved those from a 2mp sensor? Of course not. And with the maturation of any technology, sooner or later, the bloom comes off the rose, and people begin to reminisce about "the way things used to be." Warts and all. Others, who have never experienced film, want to see what it's like and find a certain something about it that's appealing, not unlike musicians who are attracted to music that was popular before they were born.
For me personally, my photography now occupies two worlds which sometimes merge. For the past several years, almost all of my photographic output has been digital -- and the reason for this was almost 100% because of the convenience factor. More recently, however, I have been getting back into shooting with film, and find that I still enjoy it. Perhaps more importantly, I can appreciate film for the differences now. Film does have a different look from digital, and people, me included, are finding this different look has its own intrinsic value. What's more, different emulsions have their own unique intrinsic values. Will the day ever come when photographers will reminisce over the different look of a Nikon sensor's images vs. a Canon's? Somehow I don't think so. But who knows.
There are those of us who are space challenged as well, which makes digital attractive over a darkroom. I used to have a complete B&W darkroom outfit, capable of up to medium format, but since moving to my present home, I just don't have room for it anymore. So I sold it several years ago. Sometimes I regret it. But more recently, I have been introduced to the hybrid world, and use a digital darkroom -- scanning and duping my slides and negatives, and sending the images to a photo-quality printer -- or sending them out in hi-res digital form. Image quality is just as good, and in many cases better than what I was getting from labs -- especially slides. So now I feel I have the best of both worlds: I can still shoot emulsions and I can process the negs myself, if I want, or send them out, and do the printing myself, or send it out.
It's all good.
Michael
