digital vs film - benefits to both ?

Some rambling thoughts prompted by the recent announcements that Kodak are giving up on film cameras, except disposable ones. Kodak will still be making 35mm slide and print film for the forseeable future. I can see the sense in Kodak getting out of the camera market, as they are not a major force in it, but there are still plenty of point and shoot APS and 35mm cameras being sold and the 35mm SLR is still a great picture taking tool. However the BBC are claiming the end of the 35mm camera and other and commentators are saying this marks the death of film.
I disagree somewhat.
Kodak have been trying to reduce the amount of film that they sell to consumers for decades, from 110 to 126 to APS, they have been trying to sell smaller amounts of film to consumers who typically do not make prints larger than 6x4. With APS they seem to have succeeded, even though the different croppings on APS actually reduce the amount of the negative used, the panorama is actually a narrow strip across the middle of the negative.
That said digital is really changing things, decent 3 megapixel cameras capable of arguably reasonable 7x5 enlargements are now available for less than 200 pounds. This takes the running costs of owning a camera right down, memory is expensive, but is reusable. Making prints is still expensive, but as long as you have a computer then this is less of an issue. Also you do not need to pay for prints that are no good.
The argument in the BBC News magazine article is that digital is a benefit for those people who develop a film with one christmas at the beginning and the summer holidays at the end, or worse. Burn film is something told to aspiring photographers, the act of taking dozens of pictures trains the eye in composition by making you actually look at the scene and choose what to take a picture of. Rather than just snapping away.
I do agree, but as there is no cost involved in taking each picture, there is no moderating influence. The discipline of each frame costing something around 20 pence each makes you more thoughtful. Digital has another issue, as it is harder to make direct comparsions between pictures in turn, as the hard copy of the picture seldom exists. So you cannot easily decide which exposure is better, whereas on a lightbox this is easier.
I'm still a firm believer in my 35mm SLR and I shoot using slide film, so each picture has a cost associated with it. There are two reasons for this, my Canon SLR (EOS30) gives me control over the scene that my digital camera (a Canon A70) does not afford to me. They both have similar control setups, but I find the larger and heavier SLR much more easy to take decent pictures with.
I suppose that my argument is that an SLR is essential if you want to learn about photography and the disipline of using film makes you more thoughtful. If all you care about is taking snaps of friends and family then a point and shoot digital camera is fine. However if you are intent on photography and making pictures, then an SLR is important. If you start with digital then I think that you may develop a more sloppy technique, as there is no opportunity cost barrier. Using a tripod and slide film gives me a structure against which to make each shot as good as I can make it. However if I was into bird photography and wanted to teach myself to pan whilst keeping the bird in flight in focus then I can see that spending 20 pence for each failed image would be a hindrence. Maybe five years ago, the emphasis in learning photography was different, much more on shooting black andd white and learning developing skills. I have no real interest in learning chemical developing skills, though becoming better at Photoshop is something I'm working on.
Maybe the digital vs film argument is somewhat passé, as it is essentially wrong headed. Those proposing the quality of film over digital are already using professional SLR type equipment, for the majority of people 3 megapixel digital snaps are much more useful than 6x4 n-prints.
For people who regard themselves as photographers then there is a choice, though in some ways this is more of a cost and type of photography decision. If you take landscapes for calendars, then you'll shoot medium format, so you are already making a decision on format. I think that this will become more and more a complex decision, depending on what the people buying the photographs want. Apparently fashion photography is moving away from Hasselblads to digital, as the clients can see the progress after a few minutes, not later that day. Even the Wildlife Photographer of the Year will be accepting digital submissions this year.
What is important it to learn to use your eyes to see that which makes a good picture and then learn to use your equipment to realise that. Digital vs film is a side issue, everything ends up scanned these days anyway.
I can see a future where I'd have a film body and a digital body, but perhaps I'd just end up shooting digitally. It is a cost equation at the minute, as a full frame digital body costs 5000 pounds, the Canon 10D and similar cheaper digital camera bodies multiply the focal length by 1.6. This makes them excellent for wildlife work, a 300mm lens is now nearly a 500mm, but terrible for wide-angle work. To get the lovely 24mm viewpoint you need to start with a 15mm lens, which are not cheap.
Perhaps the digital camera market will calm down and stabalise over the coming year, with fewer releases and less marketing devoted to the number of megapixels and more concentration on the features of the camera. One other thought is that the file formats used by digital cameras need to be future proofed, my slides will last for a long time, if I store them properly. In ten years will you be able to read those RAW images from a digital SLR, or read them from the CompactFlash media?