care to show where you got the idea that digital can do better than film? coz for the last few years up till now, all that I have heard/learned is that digital still cant be equal to film.
Not, really. I had seen A2 printed photos taken with 6 mega pixels cameras, such as the nikon d100, canon Eos d60, olympus.... in an exhibition a few years ago, when digital cameras were still quite expensive. Those photos were an eye opener! I thought they were taken in film, but they were not. They are as good as film, even better if I would say, not kidding. I didn't have a good impression of digital at that time, but after that exhibition, I am converted.
The sharpness is there, the color, contrast,......... there is not much to complain about. Of course, with digital, you can adjust many aspect of the photos with a computer and also at the stage of printing which is digital as well (in the old days, all prints were printed manually by those large chemical machines. The colors & exposure of the prints that result depended on a larger extent to the printers' knowledge & expertise in that field. No two printers(human) can produce the same prints with the same exposure & colors.), I think this make up for low resolution of those cameras.
I have seen somewhere in the web where it is said digital cameras deliver more latitude in terms of contrast. You record more of the highlight and the darkness. But with film, you either have to expose for the light or the dark, it is harder to record with a wider range of tones.