Perhaps the Guardian would have been better off instead of dismissing film simply state that they're focusing on digital since that's what a majority of their readers shoot. (which let's face it is the truth.) I think both film and digital have their applications. For example if I wanted to make *absolutely sure* I captured an event I'd bring both...with the digital I can be certain, on the spot I've captured the event since I can see my result right away and there's no risk of something going wrong with the film, processing etc. I'd bring the film to get those wonderful quality images on a physical artifact that you can only get with film (not to mention it's an interesting conversation piece.)