I feel as though these discussions are getting too far away from the basic overall point. Before we can get into semantics over terms like, 'easier' and 'cheaper' the major differences in how we are coming at this must be pointed out.

I do not believe that the act of shooting digitally and the act of shooting with a chemical (film) process can be easily interchanged at will.

Because of this, I inherently do not believe one can make an assumption about any one photographer who has gained fame (or not...we should all be so lucky) using one process to simply switch over and continue while using the alternative process. Some have made suggestions that famous photographers would been shooting digitally if it were available to them in their day. I can see the reasoning for this, as one would reasonably think that a photographer such as Ansel Adams, who had to lug pounds upon pounds of heavy equipment through forests and up mountains to get his shots, just to return home and fiddle around endlessly trying to get his perfectionist images to turn out just right in a darkroom, would very much enjoy the prospect of getting to his spots and making his photographs quicker and easier. But this reasoning and assuming would be neglecting the fact that Ansel Adams might have actually enjoyed the hardships presented to him by his overweight equipment and imperfect chemicals. This neglectful assuming is being used as a broad stroke across all photographers by individuals that have changed over to another means of production without seeing a difference. They assume that if they have switched and seen no difference in their image making, then others should be able to do the same. I have no issue with these people switching over, but I do have an issue with them supposing that one = everyone. Supposing that the way they personally look at taking photographs is the way we all look at taking photographs. When one is making these assumptions they are missing the bigger point. It is the act of making that has just as much value to some as the finished piece, and this act of making might be altered beyond an acceptable point by some who look at switching to a different means of photography.

Just as anything in life, there are many intangibles that are sometimes hard to pick out. There is no solid and easy answer as to why I personally enjoy the extra time and effort it takes to photograph with film, for example, but there are many little intangibles that can help to make up a better understanding of my views on photography. Some of the intangibles include: Not knowing if I have gotten the shot. Not knowing if I have already taken a similar shot half a dozen frames ago. The idea of a physical, framed piece of imagery that can be seen either in a solitary setting or in conjunction with its neighboring frames. Even the simple acts of loading/unloading film, winding film, and rewinding film after exposing half a roll just to load a different type of film for the next shot. To me these are all valid and valuable items that I correlate with film photography. They help me enjoy the act of making as well as the created photograph.