This is very true. I think magazines find themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place. In order to attract the advertisers and survive financially, they feel they have to publish lots of (often meaningless and inconclusive) "test features" on digital gear. Yet how many digital images are going to pass the test of time?
Originally Posted by cliveh
Many of my professional digital images taken approx. 10 years ago and stored on discs, have gone "corrupt" Now the Ansel Adams film originals you mention are far older than this, yet they will still print up as if they were shot yesterday. My earliest images shot in the 60's and carefully stored, are all printable.
If Ansel Adams had been able to shoot on digital, there must be considerable doubt as to whether his work would have survived. If there were a magazine solely dedicated to film photography and its many advantages over digital, perhaps it would encourage more budding photographers to switch to the medium, therefore ensuring the future production of film and.....who knows...maybe the re-birth of cameras like the FM2n?