I think all your comments below apply to SMALL FORMAT digital and film. If you use a big enough piece of film or a large enough digital sensor, the differences disappear and both can be excellent in all respects. But for right now, large format film is affordable and high resolution digital isnt.... JCO
-----Original Message----- From: Chris Brogden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 11:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist D image quality-_Was -Stupid Question #999 On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:47:24 -0500, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Out of those several hundred I have only 7 or 8 that > I would say could rival my favorite Reala film. My answer is that film and digital are different media. You may as well be comparing oil painting with watercolours. My experience with seeing enlargements from 6MP DSLRS, 35mm, and 6x7 negs has been that all film, even 35mm, does a better job at capturing fine details. Everything looks good at smaller sizes, but when you start making 16x20 and larger prints, the digital prints do not look as good close up. You can see digital artifacts, and the extremely fine detail that film can capture just isn't there. OTOH, when you move your nose away from the photo and look at it from a normal viewing distance, the difference in visible detail disappears, and I prefer the digital prints for their smooth colours and lack of grain. It's hard to say that digital is better or worse than film; it's different, which means it's better in some ways and worse in others. Chris
