In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

There are many things that can be done in both film and digital to equal
accomplishment. There are also things that can be done better in one
medium than the other, with results that may or may not be appreciated
by viewers.

absolutely false.

anything that can be done with film can be done with digital (and with
a lot less hassle) but *not* the other way around.

In this neck of the woods there are more than 15 major art
shows per year that have many photographers in both mediums presenting
their work, and there are easily perceived differences in their prints.

completely meaningless and an intentionally deceptive comparison.

Isn't that a bit presumptive?

nope.

Or have you been to the shows in Mr Neil's
"neck of the woods"?

he is attempting to compare two different photos taken by two different
photographers of two different subjects under different lighting with
different exposures on two different mediums, and then claiming that
the only reason the results are different is because one is film and
the other is digital. that's completely absurd.

there are *far* too many variables to make the comparison even the
slightest bit useful.

it's also not needed since whatever 'film look' someone might want can
be done with digital. simple fact.