You know, after couple of decades working in pro audio field, all this film vs. digital talk sounds very familiar. When new technology arrives on the scene, there will always be the conservatives who lambast it and predict it will never take off. They´ll go:"That digital stuff is useless, film/audio tape/vinyl LPs/whatever will ALWAYS be the real deal."
Then, when the new technology cathches up with the old, they´ll change the tone:"Well, it might look good on paper, but in my eyes/ears there´s just no comparison". They will admit that the new stuff has its uses, but will still insist that the good old way is the only way to truly superior results, often using grossly biased and inadequate "tests" to prove their points
When the new technology develops even further and surpasses the old in practically every aspect, the arguments become more esoteric:"yeah, digital has better dynamics/resolution/flexibility/etc, but theres just something special about analogue". Vague descriptions like "warmth", "depth", "larger than life" and "presence" are often used.
Eventually even the most hard-boiled conservative will face the truth and surrender to their subjectivity:"Yeah, I know digital is technically superior and can make much more accurate representation of the real world. But dammit, I just love the way film/tape/whatever distorts the reality!"
Personally I have nothing against people who prefer film or any other "old" technology. If it gives you good results, great! I just wish some of them wouldn´t feel the great need to rationalize their art and prove "scientifically" how their way is the best way. Why can´t they just admit that they like film because they ... just like it. Subjectivity isn´t a cuss word in creative enviroment, you know.
And of course, same goes for the other side too. Even if digital of today or tomorrow is technically superior to film, theres no need to try and convert others to it. Let people use the tools they like best.
