Practical Effects and CGI

     Ever since the beginning of CGI there has been the misconception whether CGI or Practical Effects are better. Common argument is that one looks better than the other, that being said is purely based on opinion. Another argument is that CGI is killing the Practical Effects business. In reality both of these points are not true. CGI and Practical have their own strong points and weaknesses as do any medium. On the point that Computer Generated Industry is killing jobs in the Practical effects industry is not true.
     CGI and Practical effects are equal in their purpose, one is not better than the other. A good filmographer would use them both to benefit and balance a film. Each have something they are good at, for example practical benefits with closeups of monsters and gory explosions, because they are real! CGI can benefit you because it can create things you cannot with practical, such as a building exploding which is seemingly impossible for practical. In the way of jobs CGI doesn't kill Practical, both are reliant on each other, Ways that works is that on set you need someone as a practical effects artist to assist in the proper recording so someone in CGI can work upon that. Additionally cost and time is a big player in what you do, Computer Generated Imagery is cheaper in some instances, but takes longer especially for rendering.  Practical effects may bee expensive in instances, but takes less time to film and build. Overall one is not better than the other, each has their benefits.