Why shoot RAW when you can shoot with film ?

[33dollars]

Why shoot RAW when you can shoot with film ?

[streetshooter]

Because Light Room has more control than the Dark Room.
Because digital eliminated the variables in repeatability .
Because most shooting film will scan to output a digital file.
There are a number of other reasons but it doesn't matter.
The choice is there and available. In the future, films won't be as readilly available.

In the end all that matters is the image.
The medium, camera, software etc is not important to photographers, only the image is the culmination of the experience.
Don

[Genster]

Digital is cheaper and easier .... but I prefer to shoot analog.
(I don't develop films myself)

[autochrome]

I have renounced the film because my home it has become impossible to process correctly , without
scratches and without stains, and yet i has one of the best analog devices of all time
the Olympus OM4 TI, as well as not bad to accessories.

But the Ricoh GXR is so flexible employment, personalisable has infinity, and produces images of such high quality that
finally the digital is much more powerful than the film.

[Ricohfanboy]

And why drive a vintage sports car through the Alps when you can fly a jet around Mount Fuji?

Honestly -- I never understand why people seem to think that film is not viable anymore, or why they have to make a choice. If, e.g., you are a happy Pentax owner, shoot both, and use the same lenses for both! If you're a GXR M user, buy an adapter to PK and do the same!

On the other hand, film *is* special, especially b&w. And with the current prices on analog cameras, and b&w developing materials, why not give it a try? B&w will never go away, I think -- since you really *don't* need a lab (these are going away, sadly), so plenty of people will keep doing it diy style -- what do you think?

What I think: I think I want a Pentax MX. Two dials and a shutter button. Zero menus. Bliss!

[olyz]

Why read digitally („Digital lesen“) when you can read in the paper version?

[Blow-in]

Why read digitally („Digital lesen“) when you can read in the paper version?

A good point made very nicely!

Personally I shoot neither RAW nor film these days - just JPEGs - so I won't bother giving my opinion as no one will take it seriously!

Richard

[33dollars]

I'm with Richard on this. If I'm going to all the trouble of working a RAW image in the computer.
May of well have shot film.
So I shoot JPEG or Film

[streetshooter]

I'm with Richard on this. If I'm going to all the trouble of working a RAW image in the computer.
May of well have shot film.
So I shoot JPEG or Film

If you shoot film, don't you have to scan the neg? When you do, do you make a DNG file?
I'm just wondering as there seems to be no set method of working film anymore.

[thelps]

I am a fence sitter. They both have their place.
A couple of film advantages,
1. More DR headroom with film
2. You can use film in a battery-less camera
Plenty more but both are good