richardsfault writes:

Could the difference between film and digital not only be megapixels
but the "look" in a vauge sense?

Obviously, although neither look is that distinctive. Often it's
impossible to tell the two apart.

If any of you are guitar players, you know that it is widely believed
that tubes are superior in guitar amplifiers.

They are, IF they are overdriven. Tubes handle distortion in a more
audibly pleasing way than do transistors, and since many guitar players
deliberately drive their systems into distortion, this is important to
them.

Under normal operating conditions, transistors are better (today).

Does anyone see an analogy where film might in some cases have a more
pleasing look?

No. Film provides better image quality in many ways, but not
necessarily a more pleasing look. The fact is, the best images look
just like real life, and that is independent of the capture method.

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