You pretty much mistook what I said.
I was commenting on people who take bad pictures, and spend all their time trying to fix in photoshop. You can't photoshop a crap photo to good. All you get a crappy photo with a shitton of editing done to it. Digital has become a means for people to get lazy and shitty in their skills.
I shoot all my professional stuff digital because it's more cost effective, especially at sport events. But I still aim to do as little editing as possible, usually just crop and resize and converting my color profile, and sharpening.
I don't sit there and edit a static shot to look motion blurred because I'm too lazy to develop the photographic skills to blur a shot when I take it with panning, for example. Hence why I can crank about 1700 edited shots from Formula D in the time a person with no photographic skill can crank out 50 shots because they're motion blurring every single one to give the idea of motion in the shot.
I "learned" photography on digital, then went to film. And in my years of doing film I feel that my digital photography has improved a million times over, and I find myself taking fewer and fewer shots on digital to get what I need.
If you really want to learn more about the technical advantages of film (resolution, quality, etc), along with some good ol' Ken Rockwell humor, I suggest this: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
I don't reject technology... but I feel the best shooting with my Holga... which takes medium format film and has no aperture/exposure adjustment and cost me $35. Yes, I prefer a $35 toy camera over my $3000 DSLR body. So shoot me.
According to Yesse, I have a NASA Space Motor.
30mpg and 25psi, no shit?!