I think for some lurkers and first time visitors here, there can be a misconception about a number of us with regards to traditional vs digital photography.
I can only speak for myself, but I think a number of individuals here share the same thoughts.
We love and support traditional because of the history, the craft, the process, the versatility, archival qualities and joy of working in a "wet" darkroom. For myself, digital does not provide the expressiveness that I desire and can get with traditional.
There is also the quality of actually working with materials with ones hands, like a sculpter or a painter, processing negatives, prints and manipulating light with ones hands. Traditional involves me in the process more from beginning to end product.
But I also recognize the potential, versatility and economy of digital. I own two digital cameras and plan to learn more and more about them. I also don't ignore the economics of digital in the commercial realm. But that is good for many of us because it provides a steady stream of used gear at bargain prices that we could only dream of owning a few years ago.
And there is the area of crossover, film scanned and output as inkjet prints,
digitally enlarging negatives for contact printing and altering negatives digitally and then "outputting" perfect negatives for easy printing.
SoI don't think it is so much about us vs them, as we may joke about or give the impression. We do care about preserving the medium for the future though.
Look forward to your postings,