Module 4's discourse on the merits of digital and analog photography created quite a buzz in the forums. Here's my take:
Digital and analog photography each has their own strengths, and comparing which is better is an exercise in futility. If you want ease of use, portability and speed, digital is the way to go. But for large-format photographs, digital's output is no way near what film can do (just ask Ansel Adams ü). A film's resolution is limited only by the quality of the scanner used, its resolution actually reaching up tp 200 MB.
For example, Arizona Highways (www.arizonahighways.com), the first national consumer publication to be published entirely in color (1946), even prefers large-format (4x5) transparencies in order to achieve high-quality reproductions of large scenic landscapes in its publications.
To illustrate this point, renowned photographer Ken Rockwell shows two crops of the same image, one taken with a DSLR, the other on a cheap film camera with a 50-year-old lens:
You just need to have lots of patience, and be prepared to lug around tons of heavy equipment ü
More links showing the quality of large-format film photographs: