My company paid for a professional photographer to do some pictures,
after he had done it I took some pictures of my own. Guess which ones
worked and which were taken with a digital SLR.

No idea because it shouldn't matter.
We had the same thing here we paid a pro to come and take our pictures
but the college wouldn't use them for the website.
We wanted our pictures to be intresting and relivant they wanted passport style.


any brain dead moran can take a picture nowadays, but professonal
photographers are still employed.


And most of them don't use film for a good reason, digital is now better
than film in just about everything.

Yes I agree but that isn't the point, the point is which is best for teaching photography and most peole that teach it seem to prefer film.


People who insist that it needs film to be a photographer are living in
the past. Photography is a wide subject and photography with film is a
very narrow bit of it.

yes but teaching it isn't In the same way when I went on a course
30 years ago we were given manual cameras for a good reason.
we could have got good pictures just by setting my A1 to P mode
No one would have had to learn what an aperature was or what shutter speed or ASA or ISO was, I wouldn't need to know what DoF was or what a correct exposure was, but as we were meant to learn photography rather than how to take photos those sort of things are important even today.

Some can get good images without even using a camera.


Even if you want to learn the basics a digital camera is going to be
better, you can try what you are learning and see if it works, without
waiting a day or two to see.

Any fool can fly a plane just select auto pilot, many more can fly
all sorts of planes and rockets on a computer but does that make them pilots.