riellanart wrote:
Like anything else, you guys are predicting stuff based on current technology. In a few years, you could see sensors that are bigger even than the size of ultra large format film. Granted, it isn't probably, but there isn't anything atm suggesting it can't be done given enough money.
As for film vs. digital, they're not even comparable. Film and digital can eventually go onto the same workflow since you can scan film. So the only difference is before the scanning process step. In which case, you're comparing the informational capacity of film (color, tone, dynamic range) to the capacity of the sensor. Sensors, like every other electronic technology, can be improved.
If we're talking about film vs. digital given its historical context, film has been around for how long? You're comparing a mature technology to an immature one. Film has gone done majorly from its heyday because it was expensive for people to get into the field. While you may shoot film now, I doubt many people that started photography late would have gone into photography without being able to shoot multiple images without regards to cost. While you may say digital seems to be the training bike for actual photography, that may be true now, but in the future, I don't think you'll see the difference if the sensor size and sensor sensitivity is increased such that it goes past film.
As for storage, this is an non-issue at best. You say you can store a negative for hundreds of years. Likewise, you can always store a digital photograph by printing it out and storing that in the physical world. If we're talking about DVDs and CDs, you could always just store multiple copies with a good integrity check software to compare any problems and merge bad files.
Sure, it may seem film has the upper hand now in terms of dynamic range and color, but what does that really mean? You're comparing a nearly century old technology to a technology that's barely 15-20 years old. Granted, digital technology have grown by leaps and bounds, but you're basically comparing the hybrid car to the gasoline car. Sure most of us are drive gasoline cars now, and look on hybrids and electric cars with disdain, but just wait some time or so. You have the Teslas nowadays to fuel the performance market. It'll just take some time for every technology to improve. If film was so clearly superior, and electrical sensors cannot replicate the same effects, then film will always stay around. For now however, it just means the technology isn't there yet.
What I'm trying to say at the end of this, is that it doesn't matter. If you missed out on the heyday of film, I'd have said, chances are you wouldn't have been in photography anyways.
Personally all this is just examples of different means to the same end.
Look at the results; If what you want is a wall mount photo of an incredible landscape, then does it really matter how big the sensor size is or how big your negative is if you can get there through multiple paths? (some involving post-processing and others perhaps not?)
I think that the key is to be able to take the path that is AVAILABLE to you and make the most of it. Not everyone has access to an 11x22" ultra large format camera, but photo stitching software is cheap and easy to use and can let you get a very similar large format or larger resolution via your handy point and shoot. Some would say that the convenience of the p&s actually increases the opportunities that you have to get that great shot that you wouldn't have been able to get with other media.