I know it's anathema here but I tend to agree with you. In fact, in his book "40 Examples" Adams mentioned that he indicated his excitement for the future "when we shall be capturing images electronically." Digital, (sorry - d@#$*&l) has its uses - particularly in some commercial photography for which it excels - and I use it in those situations. However, for the more evocative work I admire just doesn't match up in digital - particularly in B&W. About a year ago I printed a 16x20 from a 4x5. I then had that neg drum scanned and a 16x20 gyclee print done from it. Matted and framed it like the real one and hung them side by side. EVERYONE (that saw it at least!) preferred the silver image. There was no area in the digital print where I could say I saw more rendered detail but there was a depth and a presence in the silver print that the digital just didn't have.

I have decided that I'll switch to digital the day a film photographer tells me: "See, it's as good as digital!" I suspect the temperature will never drop that low however!