Drama.

Alright, folks. Seriously. I've posted pictures of hot girls kissing each other, rednecks racking shotguns, my own bloody teeth, and Sarah Palin in tight jeans, and no one says a damned word until I make some negative ramblings about film. Then all of a sudden there's more traffic on my blog than the "I Heart Twilight" page on Facebook.

Slap me around and call me Perez Hilton.

Ok, so maybe I was a little harsh in asking "What fool would shoot a magazine assignment on film?" But I think maybe some folks out there might be a little too sensitive about their favorite films. We're all scared to read photo.net every day because we don't want to see another film line going under. But let's be honest with ourselves: Film is a niche market, and the niche gets tighter every day.

And I say "ourselves" because, contrary to what some might be led to believe from the responses to my Kodachrome post, I love film. When I ask what fool would shoot film for an assignment, there's a bit of implied self-parody. I shot film for a newspaper every day earlier in my career. And, in case no one has noticed, the "S.A.D." in the S.A.D. Project stands for Scan-A-Day. Very hard to scan digital photos.

Finally, the show that I'm hanging next week(!) will contain 17 images. Of those, only three were captured digitally.

Having said all that, I take issue with the comment (there you go again, Anonymous) that "plenty of fools" still shoot film for magazine assignments. Other than medium format fashion shoots, I'd wager that the percentage of film shooters is less than three. Why would a magazine use a medium that is costlier, slower, poorer in quality, and harder to archive? And to respond to Michel, Joel Sartore no longer shoots film: "These days, I only use digital cameras."

Film is the vinyl LP of photography. Really cool, lots of fun, and arguably more authentic. But when results matter and there's money on the line, I think it's clear that the market has made its choice.