Digital photography, as we now understand it to be, is a technology and like all "new and hot" technologies it will be surpassed and fazed out by even newer technology. I don’t pretend to be Nostradamus, but it is logical for digital image making to fade into the back closets and second hand shops of society as newer and more consumer friendly ways of making and sharing pictures are produced. Consumer history dictates that markets based on gadgets and toys for adults are terribly fickle and ever changing. What is hot today is dead and gone by lunch tomorrow. I say all this realizing that photography in and of itself is a technology that was at one time hot and new, but unlike anything produced and marketed as digital, photography is based almost exclusively on chemistry and the physical properties of light. Two things that have existed for as long as there has been, well, a sun. Not to mention the fact that despite refinements in the basic materials involved in analog photography (i.e., faster, finer grain films and technological improvements to more or less existing camera bodies and lenses some of these for better others for worse) photography has changed little since Joseph Nicéphore Niepce made his eight hour exposure and successfully fixed the first negative. Yada Yada Yada. What I am saying is that film is real (you can hold it and touch it), while pixels never really exist. They require a whole host of other technologies (a computer, a monitor, a printer, and electricity) to be made evident and even then they are only transitory, existing only as long as something else supports them. To destroy a negative you’d have to burn it, cut it up, drop it in acid, hell you could fry it in a frying pan, but all you have to do to destroy a pixilated image is to shut off the electricity and poof it’s gone. I, for one, don’t want hours and hours of my life going into making something that is so feeble and in such constant flux.