The ability to take thousands of shots and experiment without the burden of expense per shot is a far better learning utensil than using film.
Yes, film is a great way to learn SOME things, but the instant feedback that you get from a DSLR means you're learning on the spot, not trying to remember what you were doing when you get them processed.
haha you are entitled to your opinion mate, i'm entitled to mine.
From experience, I have learnt a shitload more using film, slowing down, taking my time in getting a shot, rather than going 'bang, bang, bang, autofocus, bang, bang, bang' and using the built in settings like aperture priority, or shutter priority.
That's not what I am promoting at all. The aim of anyone wanting to become a good photographer should be to have such an understanding of their equipment (and using it manually) that it is no longer a real part of their thought processes on shoot.
One of the best ways of learning photography that I've found in teaching it is simply to show cause and effect. Pick a subject material, learn what each setting does, and then vary it so that the impact is in the photo and the idea of how that setting works clicks and stays with people.
A camera is an obstacle to creativity until you master it basically. Just as you can't illustrate the picture in your mind's eye until you've mastered illustration skills required.
Thanks for the comments, I have a very old, very clunky SLR. Function wise, its a monster.
I travel a bit and want to play with so many different angles, subjects, filters - and I want to take 50 shots of the one thing and figure out why the best shot actually is better than the rest and if I can - then get it even better.
Whilst I have loved my SLR, I am limited with film use and now its time to progress to the next stage.
Plus there is something so frustrating about developing film and thinking 'jeez if I retook that shot with just a little more or little less then it would of been awesome'. With digital I hope to be able to bridge this gap.