[Stefan Stackhouse]

Digital photography is still much inferior to film photography, no question. Just like film photography was much inferior to oil paint portraits and landscapes in its infancy. Once film photography became as good or better, painting didn't go away, but veered off into a creative realm of the imagination that couldn't be replicated by film photography, while realistic oil paint portraits became a very specialized nich market. Expect this same pattern to repeat itself.

[Publius6961]

Digital photography is still much inferior to film photography, no question.

Question.
For everyday photos in any light environment with a little thought the modern digitals are plenty adequate, infinitely more convenient, and tons cheaper over the long run.

Except for the most exacting professional or the anal.
Got 3 Nikon F(x)s that I haven't used in 2 years.

Oh yeah.
Kodak makes great digital cameras. :)

[antaresequity]

Digital photography is still much inferior to film photography

When I was in Austin and in West Palm Beach during the election dealings...the press photographers used Nikon Pro digitals, that had a wireless transfer to the the uplink truck. As soon as images were taken, they were downloaded to a wireless device on the photraphers LBV, wired over to the truck (could have been infrared). From there the images were beamed up to a satelite, down to HQ...processed into web images and print images literally within minutes....

I personally don't own a digital...prefer film...F5, F100 are my bodies of choice.