I'm been a pretty vocal film over digital advocate for a long time now.

It's not that I haven't shot plenty of digital. You can't make a living in the modern world without shooting digital. One of the movies that I'm most proud of was shot on a RED.

Still, it's undeniable that the discussion has changed over the years. I would argue that the debate has always been dumb.

Paul Thomas Anderson probably managed better than most of us to keep a level head. He still hasn't shot a movie digitally; but, he's been pretty quiet about his reasons why. He never came off as wanting to cut throats of digital technology like Tarantino. Even Christopher Nolan shot some of the slow motion stuff in Inception with digital cameras.

It should also be noted that Sean Baker shot his first feature on an iPhone, and he's shot every film since on 35mm anamorphic.

The thing is, as the technology has changed and the debate has evolved, there's really only one side that wants to completely do away with the other -- and that's the digital side trying to argue that film should die.

Can you just pay me the same respect that I give you?

As photographers and cinematographers, we're artists first and technicians second. I know how to read a sensitometry chart. I know how to test for dynamic range. I know what it means when I see that a scanner is rated for 48 bit color and when a camera is rated for 16 bit color.

I've never made the decision regarding how to shoot a project on it basis of those fucking metrics. It doesn't matter to me. I'm not a slut for pixels.

Velvia 50 is a slow film stock that requires a ton of light with a paper thin exposure latitude -- and, it's fucking expensive. If I'm shooting a model with a darker skin tone, I'm using that film stock because it's fucking gorgeous.

No, you're digital camera isn't replicating it. No, your digital camera isn't replicating a skip bleach. No, your digital camera isn't replicating a cross process. You can pretend that your Adobe LUTs do the exact same thing; but, they don't.

Still, we're here, on this earth, to make images. The next film that I'm making is going to be shot on 16mm. I'm aware that I can buy a Blackmagic Ursa for the same cost as the film. I'm aware that the digital camera has more resolution than 16mm.

I don't care.

The audience doesn't care. The people looking at my images aren't looking at a fucking sensitometry chart. Most photos are viewed on Facebook or Instagram or Twitter or Flickr. There's such a thing as diminishing marginal returns, people. You don't need forty megapixels for 99% of your photos unless you suck at composition. I used to shoot headshots as part of my job in DC using a Sony A7s. That's twelve megapixels, and I never had a moment of, "Damn, I wish I had more resolution."

No matter how you put it, there's a market for this stuff. I already have clients who are interested in wet plate portraits once I'm done experimenting.

This is weird. I'm supposed to be the asperger case who makes cold and calculated decisions based on facts and numbers. Yet, here I am telling people to put the facts and numbers aside for a moment and just look at the results.

If film does eventually die, I'm never going to direct another movie, and I'll stop working as a photographer. I'll keep working as a cinematographer, because that's me translating the director's voice onto the screen. But, electronic images are not and will never be my creative voice.

If digital imagery is your creative voice, I'm fully supportive. I'm not trying to take your tools away from you. Stop trying to take my tools away from me.