Alans Z & B have the right of it. Regardless of perceived output quality, there is a fundamental difference between the two media of digital and film based photography. Some day we will all understand and appreciate this as it becomes clearer that comparing the two is unproductive.
I heard another comparison this morning on NPR that seems relevant. With the explosion of word based material on the internet today, the great volumes of books that have been transcribed to digital format, the endless terabytes of information that exists for anyone with a computer and modem to access, books are still around. There remains a tactile, esthetic quality to books that no amount of web resources will surpass nor duplicate.
While a digital print is tactile and thing that can be held in the hand or hung on a wall, it is still not the same as a fine, expressive black and white print or a cibachrome nor will it ever compare. Digital may be "easier", but I doubt it. Nor is that necessarily the point of it. It is just different and valid in its own right.
And so too is film base photography. Paintings are here to stay. Books are here to stay. Film and silver halide are here to stay (or at least film is).
Peace! Sidney
Sidney,
I heard the bibliophile interview on NPR - the point about paper being a perfect technology un-changed since its invention was wonderful.
Digital v. analog discussions are usually only signal-to-noise debates. Isn't it paradoxical that photographers are extremely concerned with resolving powers while at the same time are bent on removing information that they feel detracts from their picture's other formal issues? "It could be sharper and needs some cropping." Could painters better render what they see with smaller brushes?
AZ
