I feel like that’s how I’m supposed to start this out, but quite honestly, I’ve never been anti-digital, or thought that one is better than the other. Truthfully, I see some amazing work by people using digital on a regular basis, and there is more good than bad that crosses my eyes(I don’t look at Flickr Explore too often). But I made some serious sacrifices, selling personal belongings and even a few pieces of camera gear, to raise a whopping $1300 and acquire the camera that I felt would most seamlessly fit into my routine, while allowing a more cost effective and streamlined workflow than working with film. It doesn't change my shooting much. Still primarily using my 35mm film lenses, making manual adjustments(save for white balance), and I don't feel my style has changed much. That feeling that every shot was going to look like abused HDR and took nothing but beach sunsets and pit bulls chained to ice cream trucks driven by clowns in post apocalyptic city scenes wasn't for real after all, though if you follow the link, there is a photo of a cat.
Right off the bat, not having to spot negatives, then color balance(the scanner basically guesses white balance with each preview leaving several frames with a slightly different color cast–not good for continuity!) is HUGE. I’ll always save medium and large format film for some of the important stuff. Until I afford a higher end digital back, for what they offer both the client and myself, they can’t be beat.
So, crap. Here’s to being able to afford more film while enjoying the digital side of this spectrum.