> I don't know that I believe this is a "genuine question"

Because you're being pedantic i.e, if there's one person left shooting with film, then "people" are. Look past the literal words and understand the sentiment "What advantages do people see with film over digital?"

> there are things [...] not necessarily be a technical discussion [...] others may disagree [...] artistic choices

Things like what? Artistic choices such as?

I don't think this is a genuine answer. Certainly there must be good reasons people shoot film. But nobody can disagree with you here because in so many words, you said nothing to answer the question.

edit:

It's frustrating to see gp's question downmodded because we reserve that for "Doesn't add to the discussion". It was not impolite and it allowed many of you to surface your passions about shooting with film. How was it unhelpful? Don't interpret gp's inquiry as a dig on your choices; no one need be insecure about sentimentality.

> Kodak still produces and sells film

Kodak Alaris != Kodak (ie. the original Eastman Kodak)

The later went into bankruptcy in 2012, selling off most of its remaining assets (though I think it still makes film for movie production). The reason for the bankruptcy is that the market for film died off in the 2000's. That, incidentally, had a huge impact on Kodak's (and my) home town of Rochester, NY. So yeah, I can see why people would be quite surprised that there's still this much interest in using film in 2020.

Its my understanding that the company you think of as Eastman Kodak is still the one who is actually making the film. Meanwhile, Kodak Alaris is handling the marketing and distribution side of things for still photo film (while the Rochester company does still handle this for motion picture film.)

Its an awkward split, and one I often see re-explained whenever one or the other makes a press announcement.

It's certainly confusing. My understanding was that Kodak had gotten out of the consumer film business entirely, so I was surprised to find out about this Kodak Alaris, which is based in the UK. I suppose that if Kodak is still making film for motion pictures here then they could still be making small quantities of film for still photography as well, but as far as I know most of their main production facility is being rented out to other companies/startups.

It was a genuine question despite what you think. I genuinely did not understand why, with the many advantages (IMO) of digital why people would choose analog.

The poster I responded to edited his statement after my reply to change his "genuine question" from "do people still use film anymore" to "why do people use film". Like the original question, the poster's edit was dishonest, or at least done in bad faith.

Was it dishonest though? Because as the poster of both that you've responded to, I can assure you that it was a genuine question. You can keep claiming I'm being dishonest, but you're not correct.

I see the comment I replied to was edited. It originally started off with "Genuine question: do people use film anymore" or a very similar statement. I don't believe that was a genuine question, because it is very well documented that people do.

For what it's worth...

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine.

"Please don't post shallow dismissals..."

etc.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html