Originally posted by legacyb4 It probably sounds like a cop-out, but I shoot digital now because of the negligible overheard running cost if you discount the cost of amortizing body/lens costs over a fixed amount of time.
Yes, it's a more sterile than film, perhaps leads to knee-jerk shooting, but at the same time, has vastly improved my ability to "see" and predict how a composed shot will turn out simply because of the number of additional shots I have taken over the past 10 years.
Don't think it's a cop-out at all
For some people, the digital medium works fine for what they do and it gets them the image they want. For others, the film medium gives them what they want so they use that.
I say it all comes down to what will get the photographer the picture that they want, and in what format they prefer it in. Arguably, it seems the professional design and photography field has gone mainly digital.
For difficult indoor lighting situations where I need ISO-changing ability and white-balance correction later, or where I know I will need to take a lot of shots, I will probably stick to the digital SLR. It's very useful and very convenient and in the end you still get a picture.
But something has to be said for the whole process of film. It's different. It's hands-on and it's more tangible in that... well, guess you can't really hold a "jpeg" in your hands if you know what I mean. And i think a lot of people like that.