I hope you are just not remembering your enjoyment with film. Otherwise, why did you do it?

Would not the magnification of the image necessarily magnify the circle of confusion and, in doing so, decrease the depth of field? I have always been taught that there is one and only one plane where perfect focus can be achieved for a given lens to subject distance. That plane is the one on which a point of light from the subject defines a unique point in the image. Stopping down increases the apparent depth of field by decreasing the apex angle of the cone of light such that our eye is not able to distinguish between that circle of confusion and an actual point. I would equate depth of field/magnification at the exposure end of the process to enlargement size/viewing distance at the viewing end.

Is the increase in the effective f-stop enough to fully correct for this?

And you were able to discover that without a multi-year court battle to get the information released.

It took me a couple of seconds to see, too, but once you see it it's hard to not see it. It is a petroleum storage tank shot with side lighting. The lighting gives the stairs to the top of the tank an interesting shadow. I really like it.

It makes life so much easier for both us and our dogs when we take the time to fully train them. Well done.

I have been using my FTn since it came out and it is basically bomb proof. At that time many had not yet bought into in camera meters and considered them unreliable. I never worried about a battery but carried a GE Golden Crown meter (also no battery) that fit easily into my shirt pocket. I have never had an issue with that combination and they both still work perfectly. I have, however, since switched to Gossen meters for the FTn, my medium format, and my view camera. Yes, I am one of those strange people who happily works with both film and digital and would resist giving up either.

When I was young an aunt, uncle, and their two children made the drive across country to visit. To make the trip they bought the same car in powder blue. Thanks for the memories.

At one point (before reliable built in light meters) I was doing a significant number of detailed botanical shots on film (for students to identify using a key). At least with extension tubes I had a limited number of conversions to remember rather than having to recalculate for the extension of bellows. After more than fifty years of using film I still try for the final shot I envision with only one exposure (still not always successful). On the other hand it is nice to be able to know immediately whether or not I got it right.

If you are thinking of a public school, as a retired high school teacher I think I can safely say that if you want to shoot during the school day you will be refused. A couple of years ago an exchange student my wife and I had hosted came back to visit. In our showing her young son around the area we went by the high school where I had been a teacher for some thirty years and she had been a student. We went to the office and asked if I could have permission to show her the outsides of a couple of buildings that had been built since she had been there. We were told (in no uncertain terms) that, to do that, we would need to return after the end of the school day. That school is a typical, warm weather, open design with no interior hallways and only a four foot fence along two sides facing roadways. The other sides are open to unfenced fields.

Please define what "better" means in your context. Film and digital are definitely different. I shoot for my own enjoyment and I find both enjoyable. If you do not find one or the other enjoyable you are not required to use it.

Fortunately, that is a choice I do not have to make. I use and will continue to use both. I find the use of both film and digital to be rewarding to me -- each in its own way. Your question is similar to asking which of my children I would be willing to sacrifice.

That would be true for those of us who are old enough to remember when a CRT was just too big to put into something you would carry in your pocket. However, as a professional educator, I can tell you that the younger crowd is leaning heavily toward their cell phones which, if allowed, they would tend to use to stay on-line 24/7. Many prefer to put their money into the latest and greatest cell phone and use a computer only if it is provided to them or required of them. Personally, I would prefer to not try to edit a photo on a cell phone screen -- my eyes are just getting too old. I even find my lap top marginal for editing but I will stay with it because it is more than adequate for my other computer needs. I was simply trying to point out (perhaps awkwardly) that film and digital are both perfectly valid media for expression and that it is difficult to effectively generalize comparative costs for any given individual in a concise package. I have no interest in relinquishing either film or digital.

Even amortized over a reasonable expected life span, what is the cost of the computer(s), editing software, digital photo printer(s), etc. for digital photography? Nobody seems to take those expenses into account when comparing film costs to digital. If we take those costs into account I would expect the difference between Bob's B&W numbers and digital numbers would be considerably less. I have been processing and printing B&W for well over 60 years and silver prints are permanent. I also occasionally print from family negatives that are well over 100 years old and experiencing no degradation -- yes, the nitrates do need to be stored and handled carefully but so do a lot of things. What is the life span of digital media and will anyone be able to read those files in 100 years? As Bob points out they are apples and oranges. Digital users have no reason to discount film and film users have no reason to discount digital. Too many of us do both and variety is the spice of life. Use the one that you enjoy.

Agreed!

Be still my heart! I spent my college summers working for the U.S. Forest Service out of Mammoth Lakes repairing backcountry trails in the area. An ideal summer job.