Re: Has anyone gone from film to digital and back to film? If so why?

"Michael" <adunc79617@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:2008031115281616807-adunc79617@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 2008-03-11 15:01:00 -0400, "Sinner" <sinner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>
>>
>> "jime" <jimeiffe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:nfmdnX-2gJNQTkvanZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Has anyone gone from film to digital and back to film? If so why?
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What format film?  The only real advantages digital holds over film, is

>> its
>> relative inexpensiveness, and its convenience.  All other things,
camera 
>> and
>> lens quality, being equal, fill will always provide the sharper image. 
I
>> don't think sensors will ever achieve the density levels of film 
>> emulsion.
>
> Thank you sinner. I agree with you. But we will now have to face 736
posts 
> about "sharpness." Any attempt to explain the information storage of
film 
> vs "megapixels" will fall on deaf ears.


All one need do is look at a couple of Ansel Adams prints and the
comparison 
becomes moot.