>>4372829>Film is hard to get rightWhich is why the argument shouldn't even happen
YES, if subject contrast is high enough and your photo is well lit, you can resolve fine enough detail to call 35mm 50mp+, MF 200mp+. It will not be a SHARP megapixel number, the finer detail gets on the film the less well defined it is until it is a line pair but a borderline unrecognizable one. This additional resolution translates to more lifelike texture rendition in REAL PRINTS. When scanning it, you are essentially wasting your time unless you have an advanced enough printer to take a gigapixel scan and fit it all into an 8x10 without downsampling.
A good photo to see the resolution of film, or something close to it, would be a dog with contrasting dark-light fur patterns (ie: husky, german shepherd, wolf) shot with flash, which would increase detail contrast even more and provide enough exposure to burn the finest hairs onto the film. And yet that resolution would be useless without an accompanying printing method capable of preserving it.
However, 90% of the time, you will stop down too much, have too much subject motion or hand shake, have mechanical camera vibrations, or not have the ideal exposure conditions to achieve that resolution. If you shoot a medium format SLR the vast majority of your photos will have their theoretical peak resolution cut in half period, and the utlramajority of optics available for film cameras, especially larger formats, simply can't resolve details as fine as the film itself anyways. The end result is only a small subset of people with high end gear, a 100% analog workflow, and a subject matter that is favorable for recording on film (modern architecture, snowy mountains and desert landscapes would be great with lots of high contrast detail and well lit scenery) can actually enjoy even 70% of what film has to offer. Sheets are extra fucked for most subjects and sheet shooters typically get less res out of each mm of film than MF shooters.
