Okay, this is very dangerous territory I'm entering here ... but most of you here are pals (at least you were before reading this)
First off, as most of you know, I've been around the block more than a couple of times, so I'm not a luddite, fuddy-duddy, dinosaur or hanger-oner ... I embraced digital immediately, and have sunk a King's ransom into it ... heck, some of you got into digital capture, even MF digital capture at my urging ... or at least a little bit I think.
So, here's the thing:
I personally do not think ANY digital photography has equalled film capture ... and I seriously fear that it never will (at least in my lifetime). Now I'm not talking about the usual caveats like B&W looks better to some people, I think it's across the board. I'm talking about looking at images the way they were intended ... as a visual medium viewed the way a human being looks at pictures, rather than using the the criteria of pixel peeping @ 200% on a computer screen, 100% side-by-side crops, or sterile resolution comparisons.
Each year I review all my work and add my best few to a collection I keep. Each time I review the total collection, in every case the film works not only look better in general, they specifically look natively sharper, have more feeling of detail and real depth, and are richer ... especially richer in the contrast while still holding detail across the tonal scale. I know all the intellectual technological arguments against this conclusion, and have read countless pieces of information that says I'm wrong ... (which of course I embrace because I have sunk that King's ransom into digital
My eyes tell me differently ... every time. Digital looks great ... until it's next to a well processed film shot ... even a scanned one.
(NO, I am not abandoning digital, just thinking out loud and wondering if I've bought into a set of new clothes that doesn't exist)
(BTW, this has nothing to do with all the other advantages of digital capture, or the commercial necessity to be technologically current.)