CJB,
I don't disagree with your views at all. It is frustrating especially when laymen look at photos done in digital and praise them over analog work. It must be exponentially frustrating being a student these days. Back when I was in photo school (graduated in 1992), the biggest decision I had to make was whether to buy an RB67 or not and get into medium format (incidentally, I'm glad I did). I'm sure other students looked upon me in disgust, especially when my 16x20 prints had no grain and were tack sharp.

I know it's partly ignorant, but I don't even talk to people who use digital anymore. I really don't care for it. I use it at work, but try to sneak in film whenever I can and budget permits, but I despise digital. It's really covenient and somewhat cost effective for commerce, but for fine art photography it is blasphemous. That's one major reason I won't go totally pro (I'm do mostly graphic design now), I don't want to deal with digital. I know it has it's place, but I don't want to be anywhere near that place.

I commend you and any other student of the photographic arts for learning the analog methods. If someday you need to use digital, you'll be that much better off than someone who learned on digital in the first place. It is important to know the history of a method in order to understand its future better.
Ara