Film vs. Digital reminds me of the Tube vs. Solid State debate in audio circles

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

I think the look has a lot to do with it. I did a project where I combined my
35mm photos with photos taken by someone else with a digital camera. Both were
done with what would be considered decent quality equipment. I asked my
stepfather, who has little photographic background to pick out the film vs
digital photos and he did so with close to 100% accuracy.

If any of you are guitar players, you know that it is widely believed
that tubes are superior in guitar amplifiers. They may not be as good
as solid state based on hard measurments, but they may be better
sounding or more pleasing to the ear, with that advantage very likely
resulting from a technical inferiority, i.e., "good" distrortion.

Specs for tubes are terrible compared to solid state equipment, but there are
reasons people like them. Tubes have soft clipping, which can be analogized to
the response "knee" in film. Tubes have a nonlinearity and even-order
distortion give them a very unique "smooth" sound that's hard to duplicate
with solid state; similarly the film emulsions give a subtle unique look that
is not duplicated with digital.

Monte Castleman, Spamfilter in Use
Bloomington, MN to email, remove the "q" from address