> We don't have to admit that at all. > > If you compare a high quality photographic print from film to a > digital print from a digital image the photographic print is still better. > And if you compare a large format photographic print to a digital print it > is quite a lot better.
I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but _nobody_ is making extra-large chemical prints from 4x5 any more. It's _all_ digital from scanned originals, because the prints are so much better. You need a place to go see some really good digital prints. Hell, some labs won't even make prints larger than _11 x 14_ unless they're digital. Much less 40 x 60". Look, I'm still shooting 35mm B&W. I'm going to keep doing so. But EOS 1Ds color prints are better than 35mm color prints by every single conceivable qualitative measure except the cost of the camera. (Try to name one other if you want to.) This is just not in dispute out where this question matters, or with ANYBODY who has tried both. (Try to name one person who has tried a 1Ds who is willing to say 35mm is better. Find me one person, anywhere on planet Earth. I'm willing to bet that person doesn't exist.) >In some ways I get very tired of this argument. That can happen in arguments when you're on the wrong side. <g> --Mike
