>>3451597Film
> It looks bestBe it, color or b/w; if you get the steps right, it will get you best colors and tones. Film aesthetics is mostly shilling bad processing but even that looks good. And then there's medium/large format photography, which is so much better it's not even comparable.
> It's cheaperIn order to get matched Portra or slides tones, it wouldn't be unusual to spend 10x as much with digital equipment than one would spend on 35mm equip to get, say, a Minolta SRT kit. When it comes to MF, there's no competition, as top-notch MF film systems today are really really cheap _ a Pentax 67 kit costing less than a Canon rebel.
Digital
> It's more practicalIn every practical aspect except needing batteries, digital beat film: it beats it at how many shots you can actually take, it beats it in quickness to deliver results, it's way more easily shareable, it's way more malleable to adjustments.
inb4 processing etc
Theoretically, digital could be made to look just as good as film but as a matter of fact it never does; and on rare occasions it actually get to looks good, it takes a shitload of adjustments and expertise (and accurate equipment that cost $$$).
