What I mean is that if you really want to learn everything about photography in a real professional way (I mean at the level of making magazine covers, photos for books, magazines....anything that doesn't involve a more than small ammount of post work) normal photography is still the way to go. Aside from the costs I do think that you cannot be a really professional photographer if you are not a master of a normal camera. It's not my own personal view, but I'm just saying how real pro's usually do things. Okay, ofcourse there are always exceptions, but if you have never managed to be in full control of your aperture, exposure and film you'll (not you, but in general :) never be able to comprehend why so many pro's spend so much on material and film. It's just not possible to compare it....I mean if people could become a real master in photography by only using digital equipment, why aren't Hasselblad or Bronica out of business yet ? :) Seriously, it's like when you want to become a racing driver in a class that has only automatic shifting. By learning to shift, you also learn how the engine works, how to push the limits of a car by more than just the brakes or gaspedal, if you get my point. Again, I don't mean to say that digital is unable to keep the pace at a pro level, but you are going to miss out on some very good 'inside information'. One last thing ;) I don't think that costs are a good arguement if you are going pro. If I shoot (for instance) interiors of my client's office, I don't care about paying $15 for a roll of Velvia and another $10 for a handmade print by a pro lab, cause it's just all in the price that I charge. I guess one's budget just moved upward along with the quality of your work....you'll ask more, but to produce higher standards you'll have to pay more as well, and so your rates go up as well. Take care & have a nice weekend =)