> I'm consistently amused by innocent hobbyists who go through the aggravation of shooting digital camera raw files just to get what they think is marginally better technical quality, or the ability to go back and do it right a second time, but who completely forget that if you're willing to shell out this extra effort, you could shoot film and get better results today, and even better results tomorrow.

If the 'cost' of this is 'oh noes I need to buy Adobe Lightroom or Apple Aperture as well as my camera,' then so be it. The majority of people -- amateur or not -- that are shooting in RAW are doing it with DSLRs. They have already shelled out hundreds of dollars for the camera and possibly more for the lenses, who cares if they find out they need to purchase a ~$100 software program to fool around with their raw images.

{edit} Even if people don't know that they need to buy a separate program to process RAW image files, they get what they deserve. If you're on that much of a budget, why are you spending hundreds of dollars on a DSLR without doing even the basics of research into what you will need? Not only that, but you can do RAW editing in free apps like GIMP, you just won't have all the bells and whistles that the higher-grade apps have. {/edit}

> 20 years from now we can re-scan our film and get 2029-level image quality.

Unless your storage location burns down. Assuming that the film still exists -- and isn't lost in storage -- in 2029, blowing it up to 100 megapixels is just going to show you 100MP of grain from the imperfections in the lens you were using.... Or maybe he's advocating that amateur photographers should spend thousands of dollars on the absolute highest quality of lenses to take photos of their cats to upload to Flickr? Remember he started out this 'rant' talking about being 'consistently amused by innocent hobbyists who go through the aggravation of shooting digital camera raw files.'

> The Wizard of Oz was shot on film in 1939. Today it looks great on Blu-Ray High-Definition DVD.

Maybe could it be because The Wizard of Oz was stored in a high quality vault, temperature- and humidity-controlled, possibly in an old salt mine to minimize the possibility of bacteria as well? What about that 'cost' to amateur photographers? How many amateur photographers from 1939 -- or even professional photographers from 1939 -- have 100% of their collection sitting around today in the same pristine quality as the Wizard of Oz cans?

{edit} Also, the Wizard of Oz wasn't shot by 'innocent hobbyists {/edit}

> All we had was radio in in 1939, so how did they know how to make High-Definition DVDs back then? They didn't, but by having the forethought to shoot on film, they knew they always could scan the original raw film images with better equipment in the future.

Huh? So the film-maker said to themselves, "Hmmmm I know that we don't have the ability to shoot HD video presently, but in 2009 the ability to scan this back into these 'computer' things will make it possible to relive this film in HD quality on a 60" plasma screen!" They used film because it was all they had available.

> With film, we always have our original images.

Unless we don't (see: acts of god, etc). Digital images can be backed up.

> At best, digital raw files are a close approximation of what came out of a sensor, not what went in. Digital raw files have already folded, spindled and mutilated the original image with the limitations of that era's technology. Digital camera raw files have already limited the original image in at least three different ways.

The point of a RAW file is that it is the RAW data that came off the sensors. Not a 'close approximation of what came out of the sensor.' That's why there are a million different RAW formats, because the internals of the cameras are different camera-to-camera let alone manufacturer-to-manufacturer. That's why there can't be a standard unless we are standardizing on the way that the sensors are setup, and I would argue that the would slow innovation.

> Archiving film always allows you direct access to your original living, breathing live images at any time in the future.

Unless you stored it wrong. And what's up with the imagery 'living, breathing?' Are you saying that the photo would be less 'living or breathing' if I had used a high-quality printer to take my RAW images onto archival quality photo paper?

> If you demand the best quality for serious subjects, and don't mind investing a lot of time to get it, then step all the way up to film.

Wait a minute. I thought we were talking about hobbyists here. Have we now cross over into the realm of the 'professional?' Wtf are you talking about 'serious subjects?'

> Pixels were invented in the American space program of the 1950s and 1960s to allow computers to process images. The concept behind using pixels to approximate an image is that so long as you have enough of them, you'll have a close-enough approximation of the original image.

There's also mathematics behind this all too. Look up DFT (Discrete Fourier Transforms).

> Most digital shooters are wary of this, knowing that whatever they shoot today in digital may or may not be good enough to sell to tomorrow's market. Got raw files shot in 2002 on your then state-of-the-art $5,000 Nikon D1H? Enjoy going back to your 2.7 megapixel files! You may as well delete them now.

Might as well make fun of early-adopters of film technology where people always had stern expressions because they had to hold still for a minute or so for the film to capture enough light to produce a photo.

Look at those losers! They couldn't even take a picture with a smile on their face! Now they're lock in time forever frowning! Not like me! I waited until I could _smile_ in my photos!

> You can't go back to a raw file and get more resolution. With film, you don't have to make a resolution decision until you scan it.

You don't have infinite resolution with film. This is a fallacy.

> [...] because you still have your original raw image captured alive and well.

> With film, you always have access to your original live image.

> [...] or just look at the naked film in all its original glory.

He keeps using these terms like 'alive' and 'breathing' to describe analog film and prints. I'm beginning to sense a bias.

> I support my growing family through this website.

Ha! I've found your bias. Your family is analog!