I appreciate that this certainly isn't the first nor the last comment on the gre at debate - digital vs traditional film, but I would like to make a few comments on this forum. I have always had an open mind when it came to digital images, although I do not use or anticipate using digital in my photography, I can see w hy some choose to travel this road. By coincidence, I took delivery of 40 print s today that I have to judge for a competition. There was some awesome digital work - very subtle despite being stitched panoramics - and shot on "consumer" ge ar. Yesterday I took delivery of the current edition of "View Camera" magazine - it takes a bit longer to reach the UK!! Inside were 11 pages dedicated to dig ital, studio work - that was IMHO, nothing special, in fact it was very run of t he mill. But I endeavour to keep up with my interest and so began reading the ac companying text......the prices quoted for the kit used was obscene!! "$25,000 ( here), $19,000 (there) and thats without the cost of the computer itself!!!! The point of this posting? At these prices, and for the quality reproduced in the j ournal, I can see no benefit in going digital (certainly not to this level). I i magine that it will take a long time for prices to drop to a point whereby the a verage enthusiast will neglect film and traditional techniques in favour of digi tal. I am not anti-digital, rather pro-film!! Maybe I am missing the point? But at those prices I can live with that.