Why do photographers seem to believe that digital technology is a direct replacement for film for all purposes

I don't know how true your statement is. Most of the photographers I talk to still swear by film. Frankly, film is a continuous media (basically, the resolution is limited by the number of molecules in the film) while digital is limited by the number of pixels.

HOWEVER, most will argue that digital images are much easier to post process and you save a lot of money in film and developing.

Another interesting argument I once hear is that digital photography is weakening the skills of the photographer. His arguement was that in the film days, a photographer had to be very skilled in making all the right settings to get his photograph just right in just a few exposures. Digitally, they just take 100s of pictures and then pick the best ones.

EDIT: One more thought... A slide can be scanned into a high resolution digital image that will match the quality of even the best digital images from the best camaras. However, a slide created from a digital image will never compare to an original slide.

Digital did not exist when I first became interested in photography. I am very thankful I did learn by using film cameras as it gives me a better understanding of the process involved. That experience lets me get more out of my digital cameras. I have been shooting digital only for a good few years and am now seeing people who have known nothing but digital, and many seem to have a hard job getting to grips with the actual photographic process. The result is that they are often disappointed with the images they end up with. I enjoyed photography as much before digital as I do now. However I enjoy the processing much more now. I much prefer Photoshop to the dark room. Beulah

While digital photography is more convienient and more effient than film, film has a lot less boundaries. While most digital cameras automatically fix the exposure, nothing beats doing it yourself. Say you want to overexpose the picture, you wouldn't be able to do that with most digi cams. Also with digital cameras, should something inside break down, you would have to go get it fixed and if you don't have a film camera, you are out of taking photos for a while. Whereas with a film camera, they are more durable and a lot easier to repair. Though digi cams allow you to take multiple exposures but I have come to the conclusion that film seems to have more color and clarity. Though both are great and I have used both, I will continue using film.

The two best photogs I know personally are on opposite sides of this debate, but they also do different kinds of work.

The one who does mostly posed shots (lots of control over everything) prefers digital, because he can get a shot that's virtually indistinguishable from film, preview it quickly, and tweak it himself.

The one who does more artistic portraits prefers film, for all the reasons already mentioned: more latitude in exposure, the discipline of not taking the machine-gun approach, etc. But, even he owns both types of cameras: a digital point-&-shoot for family/candid pics, a digital SLR that has replaced his (primary) 35mm for convenience/economy reasons, and larger-format film camera for the 'serious' stuff.

One thing's for certain: Digital is becoming more film-like every year, but film isn't exactly becoming digital-like.

It's hard for me to see it as anything other than arrogance. They think it's the greatest thing ever and can't see it any other way. I love slide film and it's all I shoot. I don't want to spend any more time in front of a computer than I absolutely have to. I want to spend all photography time outside trying to take great pictures.

This is such a hotly debated topic. I don't agree with folks who say that digital is just easier from the "shoot 100's of shots and pick the best ones argument". Quite frankly, as a professional, I must still make sure I get "the" shot(s) that I really want/need and blindly shooting a ton still doesn't guarantee this.

Another thing to consider is that you have much less lattitude with your exposures in digital to capture the right image. Most of the time, with JPG captures, you have about a third to a half stop over and a half stop under to really get a good image. Yes, I know you can still get an "acceptable" image outside of that, you could get "acceptable" images outside the +/-2 stops you have with most film. But it really does call on a but more attention to detail in order to really capture an image properly with digital capture. Most RAW captures can get in the +/-1 stop range, which is definately better than JPG captures, but still not like film.

Personally, I want my workflow to be as simple as I can make it outside the camera. The less time I have to spend correcting a photo, the better. So I still have to get my exposure correct. On the other side of the camera, if I'm doing a portrait session, the folks I'm shooting don't want to sit around for me to shoot 100's of shots in hopes I get the right shot (composition wise). I still have to perform and digital does not do anything to stop me from ruining their experience (expect that I can check that LCD and make sure I don't have to tell them I'm sorry later).

What digital capture does do to make it easier comes from the fact that most digital camera have a preview ability in the form of an LCD screen. While checking for exposure cannot accurately be done unless the camera you are using gives you a histogram to look at, you can at least make sure that your composition is good or that you got what you wanted in the frame.

The other thing I like is being able to do any touch-ups (cropping, removing blemishes, exposure corrections, color corrections, tonal variations, conversion to B&W or sepia, etc) myself instead of paying someone else to do it for me. The trade-off is that I spend more time in front of the computer now, instead of dropping the shots off and letting an artist at the lab do the work. I like having that control, though. So, to me, that outweighs the additional time I must spend in front of the computer.

Now, I say all of this from the perspective of a professional photographer. On the consumer side, I believe most of this changes.

Directly to the question posed here. Yes, there are aspects from each that are better. Does it really mean that you should keep both types of equipment around to do the job? No. As a photographer, I have to look at what work I do and make the appropriate choice. If all I shot were event candids, digital is revolutionizing these types of things. I don't see a need to carry any film equipment. Quite frankly, not even as a "back-up". You should have enough backup digital equipment if you're worried about that.

Now, for weddings and such where folks like large prints. I'm from an anal school of thought and I don't believe most digital cameras (most, not all) have enough resolution to really give you a proper print like a medium format negative can (maybe 35mm, but not like medium format). So I choose to keep some film equipment around to cover those situations. However, I would love to go all digital at some point, when the sensors can capture enough detail to give me the 24x30 or 30x40's that I occasionally sell.

I think that it's the availability of better technology. Any average person wants whats the latest in technology out there. Also at the same time, the more recent the technology, the more moolah they can make.

I think digital is great for portraits and such shots, but for anything distant and closeup, you cant beat film.

No, I do not think so, each on has its advantages.