Quote Originally Posted by tiberiustibz View Post
That's very true, but in your essay you referenced that some people justify abandoning 35mm film in that digital is "better" in terms of resolution. I was merely seeking to prove these incorrect.
Yes, but I am also trying to show that to counter the "digital is better" argument with a "film has more megapixels" argument is a dead-end.

Maybe one day we'll have handheld, cheap cameras that have sixty gazillions megapixels. What will be the reasons for using 35mm film then, if it does not have more gazillions megapixels? Is there something else than resolution or number of pictures on a support that guides our choices?

If you look at other photographic processes, like cyanotype for instance, resolution is not a justification at all for choosing them over digital.

And I don't think visible grain is enough of a pictorial characteristic to distinguish 35mm.

The memory/narrative argument I'm trying to make is to show that 35mm is a particular interface, a particular way of dealing with the world.

Of course, I had to coat it all with layers of rhetorical flourishes and poetry, but that's how I was feeling that day...