Digital or Film?

[AntLockyer]

Care to elaborate?

absolutely.

When it comes to digital cameras I can only afford a DSLR, this is barely a replacement for a 35mm camera in my price range (I have a Canon 10D) it doesn't have the quality of my 35mm camera, the frame rate of my 35mm camera or allow me to get the most from my wide angle lenses.

This coupled with the fact that I very rarely shoot 35mm anymore (I am moving more and more into bigger sized prints hence the LF is my man tool of choice) just means that digital doesn't have anything to offer me.

There are a few other reasons along with my current work ethic of no computer based manipulation so I am now film only

[Norfindel]

Personally I solely use digital for test shots and paid work (i.e. magazines etc.)

for my own personal work i would always use film (aswell as for paid comissions) :- Film still has many advantages over digital - although you cut out the cost of processing etc, digital cameras are very expensive and need updating regularly..... also digital is can be more problematic...... for example red eye problems seem to be much more inherent with digital ccd's, another issue ive come across are dead pixels in the image for exposures over 1 sec...... as most of my work is long exposure of head on flash digital just doesnt float my boat.

Well, digital cameras still are expensive, but you don't need to update regularily if you don't need the new features of the new models.
Red eye is caused by the flash being too close to the lense axis, it has nothing to do with the image sensor. So, if you use a camera with a high enough flash, or use an external flash, the problem goes away.
Digital is not the best thing in the world for long exposure, but it's getting better. I have a canon 300d (several years ago technology), and don't have notorious noise in 20 sec exposures in iso 100 (i haven't tested more time than aprox 20 sec).
I don't understand "long exposure of head on flash", what kind of photography do you do?
The main digital disadvantages are dynamic range, backup policy, and future of the raw formats. Adobe is trying to resolve the latter, and the sensor manufacturers are always trying to improve the first.

[adina]

absolutely.

When it comes to digital cameras I can only afford a DSLR, this is barely a replacement for a 35mm camera in my price range (I have a Canon 10D) it doesn't have the quality of my 35mm camera, the frame rate of my 35mm camera or allow me to get the most from my wide angle lenses.

This coupled with the fact that I very rarely shoot 35mm anymore (I am moving more and more into bigger sized prints hence the LF is my man tool of choice) just means that digital doesn't have anything to offer me.

There are a few other reasons along with my current work ethic of no computer based manipulation so I am now film only

Gotcha. And thank you for elaborating.

For me, I went digital because of lab issues. My favorite lab, which also happened to be one of two non-walmart labs in a 40 mile radius, decided to do away with processing. By going digital, I was able to upload to a lab states away, and have ups bring my prints to my door.

Once I went digital, I feel like I really improved. I was able to see right away what I was doing right or wrong, and I shot a lot more. I could try something new, and know right away whether or not it would work, and adjust to make it work.

And now, I've spent so much time and energy going digital, and developing a workflow, that going back to film would be very hard. The idea of film still facinates me. But workflow-wise, it is unrealistic for me. And right now, I need to focus on what works for me as a business, I don't have the time or the need to redo my entire process.

[AntLockyer]

Having shot film since the age of 9 (now 31) I've made a shed load of mistakes already

[srobb]

Thought I would add some more to this discussion. With the mention of labs being a problem, that is one reason I am really glad I just found the one I did. I don't have to worry about it going all digital because the gentleman that owns it shoots mainly film himself.

He is not able to dedicated print for b/w. That means the b/w he will print for you will be on color paper. He does, however, use a QPC lab located in Tennessee to print on b/w paper. He has done wedding photography for 15 years and will only on the rare occasion use a digital camera. He does have 35mm equipment, but most of his work is done with two old Bronica medium format cameras.

As I had said in here earlier, this is all very subjective. Photo manipulation has been a part of the business for a long time anyway. It has just been made easier to do, and much more is now capable with software packages.