I often wonder why folks who have embraced sensor based imaging seem so testy whenever they sense their choice being marginalized in favor of film photography.
Give me a break. Troll much? Get real. Have you visited any film forums? I moderate a primarily large format film forum. Since digital hit the market there have been endless, endless, endless discussions about why film is really better-really it is-really. Each new advance in digital generates a huge defensive reaction. Oh my god! Digital is geting better, what does that mean for me and my dwindling stash of film? Each time a prominent LF photographer switches to digital he/she is condemned like they are a fool or a traitor. You should have seen the outcry when Michael issued his challenge, but did anyone actually take him up on it?
I shoot both. Commercially I only shoot digital-my personal work is primarily 4x5 film. Even with equipment costs of digital I am far more productive, profitable with digital. Overpriced medium? Most people who do a cost comparison and find film more cost effective don't put a value on their time. Heck I was spending 15k a year on Polaroids alone proofing shots. My film/Polaroids/scanning cost alone every year would pay for a decent digital system not even putting a price on my time running back and forth to labs.