I realtively new to LF, but already I constantly get asked whether I shoot digital or not. (I don't) I'm not a professional, but I take my hobby seriously and get irritated by the popular assumption in society that digital is automatically better. In this forum as well there are lots of questions and concerns about whether or not digital will surpass film in resolution, if it hasn't already.

I think many out there are missing the point.

The primary joy I get from photgraphy is the thrill of the hunt, the searching and taking of pictures in the field, in the wild, OUTDOORS. Exploration.

With film - I compose, tilt, shift, focus, and click. And the image is DONE, for better or worse. Take it to the lab, process it, and see what happens. Each creative decision is made out there in the wind, the heat, the rain, the light. These become part of the fabric of that image for all time - not raw data to be manipulated later.

The experience of the image is what I savor, not the end product.

The LAST thing I want to do is sit at home and micromanage my image on a PC for hours, staring at a screen, inventing things that did not exist in the field. That is no fun. Maybe I'm too much of a purist, but something that happened in the field always trumps something that happened in the PC.

As long as film provides the great clarity and resolution it offers today - I'll keep buying it and encouraging others to do so. Digital might appeal to some - but for me, it's a claustrophobic medium.

Just thought I'd shout this out from my soapbox....