But (most?) picky pros these days don't print with an enlarger, they scan.

Roger does not do all of his comparisons with scanned film.  He compares the
negatives' theoretical resolution with that of the sensors, not the scanned
image vs. the digital image.
And not only have digital cameras equaled the film print from an enlarger,
they has, in some cases, exceeded it.  We were showing at a bridal fair a
few months ago when another exhibiting photographer came over to our booth
and, after looking over our 12x18 and 16x20 images, said, slightly
condescendingly, "how nice" it was to see someone still shooting medium
format film.  He had pretty much given up on 35mm film and started using a
D70s, but, still it was nice to see people still using the old methods.  He
looked a little pale when my wife, very sweetly, said, "Oh, no, those are
from our 5Ds..."
If our Canon 5D cameras can fool another photographer, think about the 16mp
1Ds mkII...
A truly fair comparison would be to print from the native source, not jimmy
it around to give film an advantage.  Print a 16x20 from a 1Ds mkII and an R
or C print from Ektachrome 100, both shot with the same Canon glass.  No
scan, no interneg, just direct from both sources.
Heck, I'd put my 5D up against that...

Hi, DOUGLAS!!

Well, for a start, you clearly haven't investigated much of Roger's
site.

And, Douglas, the basic problem is that people like you (who thinks the
bloody awful image hung in the Redland Times office - yes, I've seen it
too, and it is a *joke*), with little useful experience in the field,
make wild claims about the 'huge' differences between a 4000ppi scan of
35mm film and what can be done via a purely optical process.

But let's be fair - yes, there *is* a bit more to drag out of
high-quality film than a 4000 ppi scanner can grab (and Roger covers
this topic quite well, so you clearly haven't examined his work in any
detail).  But it is normally so far down and buried in film grain, that
for all but the best fine-grained color transparency film (and of
course black and white) it is almost a lost cause.  By the way, do you
shoot weddings on Provia or Velvia?  (Actually, having seen Douglas'
stuff, I think he might...)

And then once you add on the problems, effort and expense of having an
optical/chemical system of the necessary quality to actually utilise
that extra, largely theoretical, resolution, it is little wonder no-one
but the technically-challenged ostriches continue with this mantra.

This is, of course, the same Douglas who has now dumped digital because
it wasn't performing well enough, and who has *endless* problems with
equipment letting him down and giving him terrible results.  Now, what
was the common factor in all those failures and problems, with all
those different cameras/lenses....?  (O:

Real photographers don't blame their equipment, and they know the
limits of film and digital.  If you are talking about anything *other*
than fine grained transparency film or black and white, then a 4000 ppi
scan isn't that far short of the medium's limits.  It takes an
exceptional image on exceptional film to justify an 8000-12000 ppi drum
scan.  Can you point to any professional who suggests that optical
enlarging is better than drum scanning..?  Do *you* suggest that?

Experienced and knowledgable photographers (ie not you) understand that
once you start talking about poster size enlargements and *truly sharp
detail*, that 35mm film is not the format of choice in the first place.
Why do you think that (wedding/portrait) photographers in the big-end
of town use either MF, or if they do go digital, it's the likes of the
1DSII?  Because they like carrying more weight?

And Douglas, some of us have *standards* - we know you CAN'T
manufacture real detail to make up for insufficient resolution, no
matter how many times you post that claim!  Eg, here:

http://tinyurl.com/fngwa
Douglas' title - "Enlarged digital images with more detail than the
original"

http://tinyurl.com/fjske
Douglas' title - "Enlarging Digital images - proof it works"

(If you visit those threads, don't bother visiting Dougie's links -
he's pulled all the flawed 'evidence' long ago.)

And stop posting as "go go dancer".  You've been outed.