I cant believe your gettin uptight about costs to the extent your using the power consumed by your pc as a way to prove film better.
First up, I have made no assertion to the effect film is 'better'; and have said over again, the difference is mostly merely a matter of convenience.
And countered the argument that 'Digital if Free'... because it ISN'T.
And I'm not getting uptight about power consumption, just reminding people it exists; if you had to buy dry cell-batteries rather than plug in a charger to the mains; you'd not be so quick to call it 'free'. Its only 'free' because you choose not to look at the bill.
Do you sit at home staring at the tv scared to turn it on.
Up until a year or so ago... I would have said 'No.... I dont HAVE a TV... why would I want one?'... however, I was asked to repair a pair of large-panel LCD TV's and see if I could make one good'm out of the two.. I couldn't, they both had the same problem, blown power-packs.. so I bought a replacement, fixed one and gave it back, and tripping over the other, decided "I might as well fix this.... it has a VGA port... could use it as a monitor" So I do now.
Do I sit staring at it scared to switch it on?
YES!
NOT because of the electricity it uses, though, but if I do switch it on, I'll probably end up subjected to five hours of Simon Cowell and or Ant & Dec, and a possible rebellion on my hands if I try and turn the bluggers off again!
Digital is cheaper. Why? Because most people have a pc and a hard drive so you arent buying that just because you have brought a dslr.
Perhaps; but you have to accept that if they are going to use that PC and it's hard drive to support their photography, then some of its cost ought to be attributed to that persuit.
And as said, when you run out of hard-drive space; because you have filled it up with photos and have to buy another, THAT is a cost entirely atributable to photography, and occurs, at intervals the more pictures you take.
It's NOT 'free' after the camera. There are recurring costs, as with everything, they just happen at different intervals.
Like the electric, you can try and kid yourself they dont exist, or that they belong to something else, but that's just fools economics.
Film is more time consuming and costs more
Not necesserily true at all. As I said, if you dont cherry pick and snip; ANY hobby or persuit will consume whatever time and money you let it. We live to the limit of our means.
Shoot film? You'll spend whatever you have doing it. Shoot Digital. You'll spend whatever you have doing it. Time and money. The media will merely shift where and when you spend what and on what.
And yes digital cameras cost more but if youve had your film gear for some time you will have paid alot for it when you got it.
Not necesserily; I have been shooting Film SLR's since 1989. My first SLR 'outfit' was worth probably £50 tops including the bag! When I eventually killed the camera, an OM10, I replaced it with one second hand in Jessops for £15, and that was in 1993! I have NEVER paid more than £50 for a camera until Digital came along.
In digital, as its so easy and convenient, to store and share in the digital domain.. and harder to make a hard copy..
What absolute nonsense. How is it harder to make a hard copy of an image? It would take less than a minute from walking in my front door to having a hard copy of a digital image if I wanted to print straight out of camera. Failing that 10 minutes tops in post processing and then uploaded to whoever I want it printing by if I want something special doing.
Read the quote you have snipped again.... where have I tried to suggest its harder to make a print in digital than from film?
Its harder to make a hard copy of a digital file, than it is to leave it in the digital domain... no?
End of the day a picture is worth a thousand words... and talk is cheap, so I could end this post on the suggestion, if you dont value your photo's go digital, its cheap; if you do, use film, its costs, but its worth it.
All of which is your highly subjective opinion. The skill of the photographer has a far higher impact on an image than what medium was used.
If you want to play the selective snip game, I could make it look like you said that black was white.... BUT complete the quote....
But bottom line is neither is a whole truth; and what matters is that pictures get taken, and pictures get looked at... and their 'worth' is in the enjoyement they give.
So I state a proposition, then deny it, and you then try and re-present the proposition I have denied, as my opinion, so you can argue that my alledged opinion is wrong?!?!? I've already denied it fella, AND agreed with you?!?!?!?!?
Phill - you really, really haven't grasped the idea behind this thread have you... 
