[T]his is not a film vs digital post, nor a film is dead post. It's a post about some arguments that film aficionados uses that just doesn't hold up in my view.
Chimping is when you look at you picture as soon as you took it. Filmers pride themselves that they cannot chimp. Never mind the fact that many film photographers always used Polaroid hum to chimp? Ansel Adam's El Capitan, Winter was shot on a type 55. Means he had his negative and positive pretty much instantly. When he used to shoot Leicas, wedding photographer Jeff Ascough had to rotate his camera bodies for fear that one was multifunctional during a wedding. You loose more by not chimping than if you did. It's call FEEDBACK, and is a design rule of prime importance, you need feedback or else you cannot compensate for anything. Imagine if you bled to death and did not have feedback (pain). Get the image, who cares if you knew you got it in a second or a year later?
2) Better enlargements
Yes of course, better enlargements, print up to 5000000 feet. The question is, do the advocates of such arguments ever print that large? No. Most go to A3 and any good dslr can rival film at that size in the resolution department. Printing more than human size means that you will have to be further from the picture to look at time, a place that you will not really be tempted to look at it up close. Billboards are not sharp, not sharp at all, but they are perceived to be so because of viewing distance.
3) Better dynamic range
Absolutely does film have better dynamic range. But most of the time you are not shooting in dynamic range stretching situations, for these situation which compose the bulk of shooting, digital can do fine with it's limited dynamic range. Makes you ever more careful about exposure
4) LCD Composition
If composing with an LCD is amateurish than geez all users of Twin Lens Relexes are amateurish! It's called ground glass, Large Format users and TLR users were composing using a screen since who knows when!
5) Everything looks good out of camera
This argument comes from a misunderstanding of the two mediums. The film cameras has interchangeable preset looks called film. Provia has it's way with tones that Velvia does not have, etc. If the photos look good out of camera it's because the film as DESIGNED to handle images a certain way. If I used some HP5 I doubt that I would need some heavy post processing, but it's because someone designed the film to look a certain way I like. Digital is different, it cannot take different films but can only output what it saw (not factoring in manufacturer effect). So it cannot look good because nobody touched it out of camera whereas film stock have been pretouched, prepared beforehand. It's only when I put in my presets that it can actually look good, just like film. Presets are nothing more than an emulation of what film stock is. Saying that everything looks good out of a film camera is a categorical error in my opinion, comparing pre and post effects. Film looks good because it was PREprocessed, Digital looks good only when it has been POSTprocessed.
Bonus round: Digital looks mechanic and cold
Digital is like putty in your hands, you do whatever you want with it. If you can't make your digital photographs have soul that's on you. Looky here:
Digital production means are not up to par with film so far. Shoot analog and then scan, view, edit, and print digitaly makes you loose lots of information (Photoshop for example can only handle up to 32bits, printers have limited reproduction capabilities), so there is also a division to be made within the film folks between 100% analog and Filmital.
As a closing comment: I LOVE film. It's just that some arguments just don't hold water in my opinion. I'm just sick of people making me feel bad because I shoot digital. Shoot what you want, leave me alone.
Cover image by Ivarno