Jeremy Henderson writes:

Are you resorting to religious argument now?

No. I simply assume that most photographers have at least a vague idea
how film and digital capture work (although I've noticed that this is an
increasingly dangerous assumption), and so there is no need to explain
to them why film would have higher resolution. It would be like
explaining to them why an f/2.8 lens is more versatile than a f/8 lens.

Quite so, but they cannot, on that basis, make any deduction except that it
is possible to make good images using film. I'm not sure anyone was doubting
that.

Some people have never seen good images from film, and so they
incorrectly assume that film cannot produce good images. Poor scans and
poor prints are legion.

People cannot rationally "decide for themselves" without seeing evidence.

I've provided that.

You see, there are many ways of looking at things other than yours.

Yes, I know that. I try to see everything.

Make your decision as you wish, but please do the rest of us
the courtesy of not assuming that our decisions are based on ignorance.

When I see ignorance, I try to provide enlightenment. I don't take
ignorance for granted, but I don't pretend it's not there when I see it,
either.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.