I prefer film photography over digital, problems?

[spawn_14_1999_99]

With the advancement of digital photography over film photography, I was wondering if the businesses and what not out there looking for pictures focus more on the digital work than the film? I know how to successfully operate both digital and film, but i honestly think digital cameras are a way of cheating, you can enhance the image and make it look professional, anyone can, but film takes more skill. Plus when you're developing your own film, and awaiting the outcome and then looking how you want it printed; i find more exciting and gratifying than digital.

If I present a portfolio with a lot of film work over digital, will that effect it at all? I was thinking of either having one part of my portfolio digital and the other film, or have two seperate ones for both?

 

[MixedMojo]

While digital is fast becoming the standard, many photographers still use large format film, i.e., 4x5", etc., and medium format film, i.e., 645, 6x6cm, etc. to shoot landscapes, and many photography based publications like Outdoor Photographer, Popular Photography, and National Geographic still buy shots for their covers from those photographers, even though current industries drive their publications. And those current industries are digital based. Sort of the tail wagging the dog, so to speak. One industry depends on the other in some way. I think the purpose of presenting a portfolio is to showcase your ability to capture an image, regardless of the medium. But there are standards. I say a good idea would be a healthy mix of the two.