Digital has made me a far better photographer (okay - i'd got plenty of room for improvemnt

)
I've had a digital SLR for just over a year now - maybe 7000+ actuations in that time. That's the equivalent of maybe 200 rolls of film. Not having to count the cost of every shutter press has allowed me to experiment with lots of techniques i'd struggled to grasp on film, and try ones (such as the water drops and so on) that i'd have never had a chance of attempting on film. Also, the closed feedback loop allows me to shoot, examine the result, tweak and repeat until i'm happy, even with landscape-ey stuff.
After about 6 months of this intensive learning process though, I began worrying that i'd somehow spoiled myself for shooting film - so I bought a very nice mint condition 35mm camera that took the same lenses as my digital, was amazed at the quality kit you could get for around a hundred beer tokens - made the 450D seem like a toy, tbh - and tried film again. Happily the experiment worked - most of the skills i'd learned were transferrable, and the discipline of film (both financial and in exposure lattitude when shooting slide stock - get the exposure +-1/3 stop or forget it) helped me slow back down on the digital side.
So - I can't say that digital is bad, for me it's been great. The immediacy is a big thing - I process/scan my own BnW film and still take a day or so to turn around 36 shots, maybe a couple of days for E6 colour from the labs. With the digital I can have the shots on my computer, run through lightroom (and CS4 if needed) and posted up on t'interweb or given to customers in a couple of hours. I don't miss working with film, because I still work with it. It's a happy compromise, and one that I'm willing to work with while ever Ilford and Fuji are making film.

Still miss Kodachrome though
