35+ yrs?... sure, that is ultimate RAW itself. That is why National Archive or Mindef Manpower use microfilm to archive. With little physical storage space, u can have lotsa archives. Let say a hole or fungus on the film, u can still project it and see. A single byte of dead data on the digital media may mean unrecoverable data. On integrity, would the court believe a digital photograph as evidence then yesterday technology? If not why?Originally Posted by JT1
Many here may be teens or techno-geeks, maybe ever only use a dslr before. both have their space. but sometime people make their claim becos their dunwan to feel being left behind or 'outdated' infront of fellow mate or have to say his is better since the person may already spend mega-thousand and if they started to doubt their choices, it may look stupid. i say this in a psychological point and nothing to do with who or photography. it happen everywhere.
if they know their choices, that will be fine whether film or digital or whathaveu becos they know what they want. they will also be very much contended and busy using and have no time trying to influent ppl showing them that their decision are far superior.
do u know what u want? do u know yr choices and why do u care what they next guy use?