On Film versus Digital

Much has been written and I'm sure much more will be written on the subject of the relative merits of film and digital image capture. Having read some of the much that has already been written I thought it was time I joined the debate and put across my point of view. I have carefully formulated it over recent years, based on my experiences using many examples of both film and digital cameras, and it is this...

I don't care!

Before the advent of digital technology the battles were over Fujichrome versus Kodachrome or colour versus monochrome. I remember that there was a particularly uninteresting series of arguments about film and developer combinations that ran well into the eighties and, although I'm too young to have been there, I'm sure Leica versus Contax was hotly discussed at some point in the past. I guess the original was probably a fight over walnut or mahogany cameras, or maybe robin against canary for which provided the more eye-catching "birdie". Even if this one gets settled we have CMOS versus CCD waiting in the wings, if it hasn't started already, and no doubt others will come along after that.

I don't know if it can be attributed to some form of tribalism or male competitiveness (it does seem to be the men who do it) but for as long as I can remember I have seen disputes in the field of photography; and I just don't see the point. The answer to, "I couldn't possibly consider ever using a...", is simply, "well then don't".
Use a digital camera, use a 35mm camera, use a medium-format SLR/TLR/box camera, use a plate camera. Draw on the pavement with a piece of chalk. Create pictures by banging nails with differently shaped heads into a block of wood. Take up angling or collecting early mechanical adding machines instead, I really don't mind. Just don't insist on trying to convince me that I must do so too!