>From a photographer's POV, the "film is dead" approach is a bit of overcompensation/payback from the digital folks who have recent memories of "digital isn't serious photography". Of course there is good reason for film to remain, just as photography itself didn't kill painting. As for me, I find increasingly that most of my images are viewed on computer screens, which have, for some, become the natural evolution of the slide projector. Yes, I know there are differences but this is were we are now, and at least in my life it seems there is always a computer available. Digital is just a better tool for me vs. film/scanning.
>From a business POV, the industry is simply adjusting to film being a much smaller market. Notice that smaller is not nonexistent, but a smaller market does work differently. Ask Kodak. >From the PDML POV, there is a new camera with all of its peccadillos to discuss, and a digital Pentax is about as "peccadillo-laden" as it gets. This is also a new piece of photography, i.e., Image processing software like PS. PS is probably a bigger breakthrough than digital cameras themselves, as it finally gave most photographers processing control over color images. It is also a feature/techniques rich subject, which is why we get so many posts. Since Pentax doesn't make any serious version of such software, it is also a popular "OT" subject. Although many did not have a darkroom, everyone has PS. I can understand why film users may feel neglected, but I really don't think this list is big on "film is bad" as much as "digital is good" and since digital is newer there is much to explore.
