film size is not relevant, grain would be ASA / ISO to same and still misses the point -- film is inherently many times better resolution than digital and will be for a very very long time
If you don't understand this - get an enlarger, enlarge a 35mm film negative out to 3 ft by 4 ft - then try doing the same for digital at 9600 dpi -- you could kind of stitch this together with a gigapan but that gives the game away; to do this in digital you have to take many many shots and stitch them together
Please can you back this statement up with some quantitative analysis of the subject.
While a lot of criticism has been levelled at the comparison between the 1Ds and Pentax medium format on the Luminous Lanscape (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
), some other comparisons have shown a slight edge on the part of the "next size up" film format. For instance, read http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml
which compares medium format digital with large format film. In this instance, the large format film had a slight edge, but it wasn't large.
Digital cameras are and always were convenience cameras; that is their reason for existence (raispn d'etre)
Yes there are people selling digital images - printed at 300 dpi on special papers and inks so they last more than a few years; no these really do not match a similar film picture in quality but that isn't the point
Please back this up with facts.
Yes film sees 10 - 11 f stops while digital sees only 4 (which is why we have HDR programs to fake more by combining pictures)
It is pointless getting into a debate about the usable dynamic range of film vs digital, but this is one of the last areas where film still wins over digital by a clear margin. Digital cameras just do not have the dynamic range of film. This is not proving a major impediment, although it would very useful to have better DR available in digital.
What all this is getting to is this: digital is not for professionals if you are looking for quality but so few are (think! The iPhone is the most widely used "camera" these days, smart phones with cameras vastly outweigh all other cameras. But this is NOT about popularity, it is about quality)
Yet again - back this up with some facts please. Show us some verifiable statistics about the percentages of professional photographers who use film vs digital.
Off the top of my head, the main area I can think of, not backed up by facts, where film is still king is in large format landscape photography. The likes of Ken Duncan just have no choice but to use film for that kind of work.
If you can't come back with some verifiable facts, I will just have to assume you are trolling.