Digital BW, The Print

>> I saw first hand 24"x30" color images taken by Vincent Versace with a
>> Nikon D1x and then printed on an Epson 10000 on Epson (Crane) Rough
>> Fine Art paper. The prints were outstanding, color sharpness, detail,
>> etc.
> 
> Digital prints ARE sharp, as they should be, but how can you tell it had
> "detail" (reflecting the actual scene imaged) without having seen the
> original scene, or having compared it to a film image of the same scene?

This is such a broken record.

Can we just agree that some people will never enjoy a digital image until it
holds as much detail as a side by side print of the same image shot on film
and scanned on a highend scanner, and some people will either like a digital
image, or not, without considering how it might have looked on film?

For some reason every time someone says they've seen a digital image that
looks great, or "looks as good as film" it gets compared to film's detail
holding ability. I think they mean they mean it looks worse than film in
some respects, but better in others, so averaged out it looks roughly as
good. How 'bout "as pleasing".

If every time someone said they saw a gorgeous inkjet print it got compared
to, say, a wet silver prints dmax, this list would bog down really fast.
Let's try not to let that happen.

Todd