The consensus of people here: silver gelatin is unmatched. The consensus
of people in digital newsgroups: digital can be better.  It's unlikely
that such a question will get any useful reponses, and it's likely to
cause a huge expulsion of hot air which will waste everyone's time. The
only way to really get the answer you're looking for, if in fact you're
not just trolling, is to find examples of the best digital prints and
compare them to the best examples of silver gelatin prints and see for
yourself.

-Peter De Smidt
www.desmidt.net

Currently I don't believe there is a digital camera that can match a
really good film print at 16 x 20. This is not to say that the digital
print will not look good but a print from a 4 x 5 camera printed at 16
x 20 will look better.  Some of the scanning backs are getting close
but to really look sharp a digital photo needs to be printed at 300
dpi, this would require almost 30 MP from a digital camera.

Now if we scan that same 4 x 5 film the question become can it match a
print made from an enlarger.  This is not an easy question since the
papers used for digital printing and optical printing are very
different.  There are a wide array of printing paper available, some at
a very high cost, that will give a wide range of effects.  I have heard
that the prints made of some of the metal like papers can be very
stunning, but would not look like a optical print. But as to which one
was more "radiant", I doubt you could ever get good agreement on this.

statements. He seemed pretty upset about the idea that when using
Photoshop you can work on a photo as you have time.  He tried to make
it sound like this was a bad thing, that no great work of art could be
done at ones convenience, Michelangelo seems to have done pretty good
even though he took his time.

Scott

On a similar vein, modern minilabs print digitally - ie scan the film than
use lasers to expose the paper, rather than shining light through the neg.
These produce a good match for optical processes for colour.  Now it would
be possible (but probably not economically viable), to create a digital B&W
printer, that uses laser to expose true B&W paper.  I wonder if such a
machine would allow digital to be a good match for a true B&W print. Even
printing from film it would offer advantages such as easier contrast
adjustment to produce more consistent prints. But then I suppose half of the
fun of the darkroom is getting it right.
I've also heard on the grapevine that there are now RA-4 B&W papers
available, so that minilab printing of B&W is better than the cyan/green
results obtained when printing the new C41 B&W's on colour paper. I wonder
how these B&W papers, which would be using dye to form the image, compare to
traditional B&W where silver forms the image.

More fodder for the big kill file.

This is the same sort of   "for the average person - useless comparison
that means nothing"  as the audiophiles get into. Parallel push-pulled
6L6GC's driven by "black plate" 6SN7GTB's will deliver "sweeter" highs
and more "earthy" lows then the grey body, 6V6's driven by 12ax7's.

WHAT CRAP!!  (for the average person)  My 47 year old badly abused by
"workplace noise" ears won't tell the difference.

I have a digital camera and I use it and I enjoy using it.

I have a 4x5 LF camera and I enjoy it and I enjoy using it

They both have their place.

WHAT BLOODY ELSE MATTERS??

Besides, isn't this a "darkroom" group?  The equipment group is elsewhere.

Silver gelatin prints are still superior.  Platinum and Palladium prints
are superior to even the best silver ones.  Film photography is still
superior to digital.  There's just more information at higher
resolutions with film than with digital with no interpolating needed to
get a "complete" image.  That makes a big difference in print quality.
Plus, most digital prints, b&w or color, are frequency modulated,
halftones using only a few colors or greytones, plus black.  And
halftones are inferior to continuous tone prints.

It's getting better but it still has a long way to go. The issue with the Dmax
has been resolved. What's left is getting the "pop" out of the midtones.

apr1605 from Lloyd Erlick,

In my case (and I agree with the sentiment quoted) it has nothing to
do with digital or otherwise. I like the look of photographic prints,
which is why I like to make them. I prefer them to paintings,
watercolors, graphite drawings, even listening to music. Mere personal
prejudice.

regards,
--le

Where it stands is that most B&W photographer/printers will agree with
BB because they understand what what it is they are seeing. A lot of
people just getting into photo or otherwise not lacking the experience
will think it is something obtainable with digital (prints or cameras)
Its not. Just one man's opinion,...but I am sure others agree.

Oh, boy! This is flame bait of the first order; can't be answered
without going all weepy philosophical/theoretical. So be it.

Any digtal system is an APPROXIMATION of an analog world (unless you
want to go so deep as to look at quantum states at the subatomic level)
At some point, digital is going to have to decide if something is a one
or a zero, not some intermediate value; this is a compromise.

Therefore, it follows that a very, very good analog system will ALWAYS
be superior to the best digital, whether it be reproducing sound or
pictures. The fun thing is, digital makes it easy to be quite good; the
final layers of guilding on the analog lilly are very hard to achieve.

This is seen more clearly in audio; digital photography has not yet
achieved the refinement of, say, a compact disk.

In my opinion, the current sensor technology is fatally flawed; too
many things in there to compensate for other things. I do NOT know what
an adequate replacement may be. Printing is a bit better, though we are
hitting some inherent limitations in inkjet technology. I don't know of
an adequate replacement for that, either.

As noted, at one time film recorders were common. These would take
digital output from a computer and "print" it onto slide film. It would
be interesting to see if a similar system for B&W prints could be
marketed at the hobbyist level; this is of course already common
commercially for color prints.

You can create the radiance of a "finely crafted silver print" using film or
digital. Just use the same paper stock using a digital enlarger and tray
process and tone if required. Digital camera users need not limit themselves
to inkjet or similar prints.

What exactly are you trying to compare?

--
Dooey.