pros & cons of digital vs. film

I'm posting this question to all vendors.....what
is the difference in using digital vs. film? I've seen pros and cons from other posts, but I'd like to hear from the photographers.....what do you use and why? I appreciate the info.....

This topic comes up often. My opinion has not changed. The Negative is STILL the best source for reprinting enlargements. When you scan a negative you are transferring the quality of film to a digital source. Then computer rendering or enhancement can be done before the photo is enlarged. When the file is digitally printed you still have the photographic quality of the print.
By using a digital camera, the quality has not quite matched film. Some people will argue, ' well it's not film!' I say then you have to accept it for the format it is, and it shouldn't be compared to film because both are entirely different mediums.
Used in conjuntion you achieve wonderful results.
Used individually you must look at the quality of the final product and decide for yourself.
Artisan Photo Group

Absolutely agree! Couldn't say it better myself. Film is 3D - it shows depth. Digital is produced by ...... something entirely different. There's a reason why George Lucas is the only director in Hollywood using digital. Yes, there ARE advantages and the quality is quite extraordinary but you cannot get FILM quality from the digital process. There IS something more alive from film. And yes, we also scan in the negatives and have both so there is no reason for me to switch to digital (although I'll probably be supplementing w/digital someday.)

Also, I can't imagine 1000 thumbnails on a screen! I need proofs in my hands to really see the picture and design an album.

Good luck!