I am getting real tired of digital vs. film arguments by people who have no idea what they are comparing. Digital has reached the point where it is professionally acceptable (ask TV if his customers have any complaints).
If quality is the issue film still is better. You say your ultra high res digital is equal to 35mm, I raise you 120 film. When you match 120 film, I raise you 4x5 film. When digital equals 8x10 film it will be too inconvenient to compare larger formats, but there are a few 20x24 cameras out there.
Furthermore, I hope everyone here is aware that what is being compared on those sites are digital images of prints made from film and digital originals (at least on the first site). That is far far from comparing apples to oranges. It is more like comparing banana pudding made from apples to another banana pudding made from oranges (both sans the bananas).
---
Paul Delcour wrote:
This is interesting. What strikes me is the absolute smoothness of the digital images and the very very grainy film ones. If all this is correct I want the *ist!
http://www.mindspring.com/~focalfire/DigitalvsFilm.html
http://www.tawbaware.com/film_digital.htm
:-)
Paul Delcour
--
--graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
