Ctein, you depict well the behaviour of film users, but it strikes me that I never heard of a particular DSLR that is so beloved that nobody would want upgrading it. I know Mike Johnston fell in love with his Minolta 7D, but Mike is a little weird, don't we know? ;) There are some people who exploit the particular features of certain cameras (those playing with the noise of the Ricoh GRD), but I can't see the same devotion to a CCD sensor that film users have for their products (only exception I can think of is the Kodak digital monochrome camera). DSLR are rated in terms of performance and ergonomics. Films are rated for their beauty. My theory is that a particular film is in fact a whole precise set of assumptions and decisions, whereas a DSLR is a vague, wide collection of semi-realized decisions that one has to complete in post-processing. So in fact, there's not much to love in a DSLR, since you are responsible for making it beautiful. We film users are so lazy!

I never thought of editing in positive/negative terms, but now that I read this, it suddenly makes sense of my way of working with film. With film, you expose a set number of pictures, and make a contact proof sheet. After that, you decide only which ones you WANT to print. You don't have to delete the ones you do not want; just pick the best of the bunch. If you needed yet one more reason to use film, it would be that it forces you to edit your pictures in a more disciplined, positive manner. Great training for your eye.