>>4319815It was explained already
The way film records detail varies by the texture, color, and lighting on the detail. The only way film can reach the peak of its resolution is if you cover the film with a metal plate and then blast it with light. Near infinite contrast levels. Since it's layered some colors can be softer than others and light and contrast intensity mediate detail loss. There is no shadow DR. You need to overexpose as much as possible to build density. Also, the lens you will actually use on a film camera is much more likely to be heavily flawed, with coatings that worsen color specific detail loss, make color accuracy worse, and optics that soften the image.
IN THEORY, art repro fag could have gotten a sharper image by trying to get more exposure and contrast onto the film, but he might have blown out another part of what he was trying to duplicate requiring masks over the subject
The way digital records detail is with highly sensitive photon collectors but the way it records color is by interpolation of a 2d plane instead of 3d layers. Its powered by electricity, not light, so digital can pull sharp detail out of insanely deep shadows that would not even expose on film, but once those collectors overflow it's a hard clip from grey to solid white. The color is guessed based on adjacent collectors with color filters so some combinations of color, especially noticeable in foliage against blue skies, so digital loses resolution on different kinds of targets but has much more with underexposure. Since that looks like a rather dingy part of the image digital is going to record sharper detail, but if you look at the halftone pattern you can see digital is starting to shit its pants a little. Also, the lenses you will actually use with digital are going to be a lot better.
>>4319849So what
Cameras are used with the lenses for them
You are not using a sony GM with any film camera, or a rodenstock on a snoy
