Quote Originally Posted by Ronnoco
Michael, that is a gross over-generalization that is way out of touch with reality. What do you mean by superior to film? What film were you using?
Long before digital was around, I spent LOTS of time with 35mm film. My own opinion, and those of many "experts" was the same: that tiny sliver of 35mm film just can't be magnified enough to do much above 11x14 if that. I did everything right, using the then popular Kodachrome 25, heavy tripod, cable release, etc. but couln't get the large images I wanted. That was when I moved on to 6x7 cameras using Velvia. I bet I've been using cameras before you were even born.

Do you know what film is the best quality in terms of sharpness and resolution in lab tests? Did you actually compare shots with a film camera under the same lighting, focal length, shutter speed, etc. with a digital shot using the same lense etc.? What was your subject? Did you examine the shots with a magnifying glass to look at sharpness?
Obviously I used lots of film, both 35mm and 120/220 roll film. Obviously I used an 8x magnifier on a color corrected light table. So what? When custom printed, Cibachromes at the time, I liked what I got at 8x10 from 35mm and larger prints from 6x7. So what? That was the best that was available at the time.

My first encounter with digital was the Olympus 1.3 MP camera my friend had. The images she was taking and blowing up to 5x7 and 8x10 turned my world around. At that time, I also had the very silly notion that film had some magical properties and some huge "pixel equivalent. I argued that on this very web site so many years ago. Those small digital images showed me that my notions about film were not correct. You are still in the denial stage just as I was.

Frankly film still has richer colour and tones than digital but adjustments and post prossessing are greatly reducing that weakness.
Oh come on now! Certainly you were laughing when you wrote that. Digital is all films in one package. I can get the circus-like colors of Velvia or the natural colors of plain old Ektachrome. I make those choices, not some tech at the photo shop. Digital images falls in-between slide film and print film when it comes to dynamic range. If you shoot print film, your arguement really falls apart as the film and you have no say in what you get!

In sharpness and resolution under tight comparison conditions, the lab results support what I have found through experience that 8 X 10 prints require 5.7 megapixels to match the sharpness of film.
OK, lets turn it around. You demanded proof from me, I'm now demanding proof from you. "In your experience" says absolutely nothing. Who made the prints? If it wasn't you, you more than likely have all digital prints anyway that were scanned at a lot less dpi than even a cheap 3 MP digital. What process of printing did you use? Were they LightJets or inkjet or darkroom? What calibrartion process did you use? By the way, I've researched and posted the numbers twice before, I not doing it again: the resolution and S/N of film, even Velvia, is much lower than digital. Do your homework and look it up. Like it or not, 2300 dpi gives you grain. End of the line, there is no more information past grain.