There are always 2 sides to every coin, and I think everyone who has posted
on this subject has made good points.
My only additional observation would be that computer technology and
traditional film technology can compliment each other--they are not always
necessarily "either/or" opposing forces in the real world. One's ability to
upgrade must be tempered by one's cash at hand.
The fact that I still shoot film for negatives does not mean that I am
against scanning and/or manipulating images in a computer. In fact I do
this on a regular basis as needed, and make traditional film negatives from
these. And the quality remains far better than what I get from
computer-generated negatives from a low cost laser printer.
How long will this last? The answer lies in what Harold refers to as
Imagesetters and what their cost will be to small and hobby printers a
couple of years down the road.
If there is an "Imagesetter" for under $200 that can make dense negatives
as good and as cheap as 45 cents-a-sheet traditional lith film negatives
within a year or two then even my camera will probably be retired. Until
then, I'm glad to have it.