In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Claiming superiority of a technology, and I fully agree. But there are
film shooters who claim superiority of the final output using film.
Film is limiting, and that's all anyone is claiming. If you take two
identical photos under perfect conditions, one with top 35 mm film,
and the other with a good FF DSLR, the prints should be of equal
quality before any processing is done. I don't think anyone would
argue with that. But if processing is needed or simply wanted for
artistic purposes, which would you rather work with, especially if
it's major work?

I don't recall any specific references, but most of the film users
that have posted here are talking about *their* experience and
opinion. If they feel that they can achieve better results with film,
I accept that.

it shows that they don't know how to get good results out of digital.

they're blaming the medium for their own lack of skill and worse, they
refuse to learn how by insisting that film is better.

I would rather work with digital, but that's my own opinion. What I
don't agree with are the attacks on film users who are doing what they
like to do. I don't even care if they make claims about the
superiority of film. I understand that to be their opinion based on
their own capabilities.

people can use whatever they want.

the problem is when people make factually false claims, such as film
being better than digital.

To label their work "mediocre" is an undeserved insult.

that's not what was said

I'm not convinced that being "limited" is such a bad thing. If the
film shooter goes out with one roll of film, he gets 36 chances to get
a well-composed, well-exposed, good photograph. The digital shooter
can shoot hundreds of exposures on the same outing with one card, and
(if shooting RAW) an almost unlimited ability to improve and correct
what was not done right in the field.

nothing about digital prevents someone from only shooting 36 photos per
card or whatever limit *they* decide is appropriate.

if someone wants to take hours to compose a shot and shoot only one
photo, they can do that too.

Digital has allowed us to get sloppy. Not that we all are, but the
medium allows it. The film shooter tends to be more disciplined and
take more care with each shot.

myth.

I'm not going to go back to film, but I do make an effort to bring the
same discipline and care into my shots that I did when shooting film.
It might improve the results if each of us went out with our digital
cameras and restricted the day's shooting to 36 frames and printed out
each image only as the camera captured it. No peeking at the image
taken or the histogram in the camera. Results visible only after
uploading. Just as an exercise, you understand.

that won't help people learn.

Digital is like allowing a batter to have an unlimited number of
strikes. Sooner or later, he'll hit the ball.

not even close to a good analogy.

digital is like allowing a batter to keep hitting the ball like they
always have (or strike out if they were a klutz), without ever getting
tired.