The film vs digital debate is an interesting conversation. I’m currently a DSLR fan. I have a Canon 300D a cheap Canon 50mm f1.8 II prime and the inexpensive Canon 18-55 F3.5/4.5 zoom lenses. I am a photo enthusiast with higher asperations perhaps… as long as it stays fun to do. So with no real pressure other than self criticism, no deadlines, no budget, etc… The ability to try and learn the basic photography skills is amazingly inexpensive (with the DSLR I can go completely manual)…. This image is an example. I’m currently interested in the atmostpheric qualities of extreme “bokeh”… This is the effect of blur from an extremely shallow depth of field and a product solely of the optics in the lense. I happen to think this image pushes the extreme and was shot wide open (F/1.8) with my 50mm prime. I used DxO Optics pro 3.0 to develop the RAW file for a bit of cropping, a bit of color adjustment (hand toning)for this effect. I like the softness and lack of “everything in focus” as it tends to add a dreamy richness to the image. In reality the prairie is so chuck full of stems, leaves, seeds and “the stuffness” that in all that detail it becomes hard to distiguish anything… which is precisely why I chose this effect… So could I have done this in film – you bet. Would it look better? Depends on your assement of “look better”? Perhaps for large print work the film would produce better results.. Then again I could simply redevelop the raw file in a tiff format and larger resolution…so who knows… I’ve been able to try out lots of things and for little to now cost (wear and tear on equipment)… Never would be able to do that much practicing on my limited budget… So until money is no object… DSLR it is for me.