Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
When digital first emerged, for years I thought it was a wonderful addition to film, giving greater scope and possibilities of image manipulation and artistic realisation. Then sometime around 2002 it suddenly seemed to be high jacked by marketing people to the exclusion of film. Would others agree?
As long as digital has been part of publishing, it's been a wonderful addition to film. scanners, pagemaker, laser printers, early 90's tech like iris printers being used for artistic purposes, film recorders, dye sub printers, it's been a long line of commercial products.

2002 brought us the affordable DSLR as one more change. They were affordable because they were meant to be built in large quantities and had to be marketed as such. I was among the first in line for a Nikon d100 when it came out. I bought it not as a replacement for film, but a useful and creative tool. I've used DSLRs for many things film is impractical for, and for some things instead of film when either film or digital would the job just fine.