Originally posted by ThorSanchez I don't think it is just convenience over quality. Sometimes that is true, especially in early models. It's probably true that a good photographer could get objectively better results from film than from an *ist. But now? I think even the most hardened film advocate would be hard pressed to claim a K-1 or even a good APS-C body wouldn't give you better results in most or even all cases.
We could go down a long audiophile rabbit hole, but you can get equal or better quality digital music than vinyl. And the digital copy doesn't physically wear down and degrade every time you play it. The physical media may eventually degrade, but hopefully you've made numerous perfect copies before that happens.
I think we're basically in agreement, but to be clear, convenience is what mostly drives the change, and when that happens, there's no going back for the majority.
The thing that has always struck me in the arguments over analogue versus digital, is that the outputs with each are different, and the user can decide which they prefer for themselves, although most would not do side-by-side comparison tests in making that judgment. Still, you have to make comparisons wisely: ask me whether I'd prefer to listen to a vinyl recording of Dire Straits' Love Over Gold or an early CD version (through the same HiFi system) and I know which I'd choose – that's one test I have done, but it reinforces your point about improvements being made over time (for example, sampling rates have made a difference since then).
Your remark about the K-1 struck a chord with me. I have a friend who's a dedicated film enthusiast, even though he got interested in photography through digital, and he was quite firm that the K-1 was the only DSLR he would countenance buying, which says a lot for its ergonomic design, as well as its output. Maybe it's also the fact that most of my lenses are film-era ones, as he likes the look of my Flickr posts.
The later point you make about schools and analogue photography got me thinking a bit more about the subject, too. Here, schools, colleges and universities stuck with running wet process alongside digital for a long time, although many have now abandoned analogue altogether, which I think is something of a pity. The argument often made in favour of retaining wet process was that it forced the student to slow down and consider what they were doing – to take time in considering their subject before pressing the shutter. There may also have been an element of teaching appreciation of the processes by which the masters in the analogue era created their work, but I'd defer to others with closer experience than mine, on that point.
Whatever the past positions on teaching, one can only speculate on the reasons for moving solely to digital, but I can't help wondering whether the culture of instant gratification had something to do with it, rather than cost.