So what's wrong with Film, I ask?

1) Film takes too long to process
2) Film takes too long to print
3) Film's too troublesome to change from roll to roll
4) There are only 36 exposures in a roll
5) Film's so much more expensive in the long run
6) Film's so inaccurate and it's just a shot in the dark

Very true. But what if film photography was the true shot into becoming a great photographer? I don't pretend I use film all the time; I'm a digital photographer for most of the time. And I'm not saying that film photographers are the only ones who will become great photographers; Quite the contrary.

In today's society, the ones who make it the most are the digital photographers who get their works out a lot faster and can do so much more with their shots. So how can film make you a better photographer?

With digital photography there hailed an era of careless shutterbugs who fire off their shots with no consideration whatsoever as to the photos they were taking with the simple mentality of 'If this photo's bad, I can take it again'.

This is good. Having started from the bottom, I agree with this and know how much money it can save you. Sure as hell, this is the most practical way.

But what about shots that will never be seen again? Do compositions of the photo even matter at all?

I believe film photography trains the photographer in the long run to quickly take the best photo with the given light conditions as well as movement. When you are forced to think 'This might be the only shot i will get. I better take it well', then perhaps everyone's photography will improve a little.

I have seen many photographers who go around, shooting a whole 20 GB worth of cards a day in JPEGs. That is no mean feat. I agree that it is good that you shoot and keep shooting, so as to document as much as you can. However, is this a case of the person shooting 50-100 of the same photo and saying 'Don't worry, I have a hundred photos in my card, at least one of them will turn out fine'?

Hmmm.