ry, WOW! Back in 1952 we shot Panatomic X and Tri X Kodak film and thought it was special to have 35 mm that would develop to 25 ASA and 100 ASA standard (400 ASA pushed). Good old Kodachrome (Multilayer) was 64 ASA. Even then the larger format cameras would produce the truest print. So while the cameras get more technical the "laws" of film remain the same. When I purchased my 4'x 5' press type camera for sheet film it was to get clean prints from part of the negative. The cost of color sheet film and processing would be beyond most people's budget. In the darkroom it was you, the negative, the paper and all the talent you could muster. Sometimes that got just a little edgy if you screwed up the shoot and had no way to get better negatives. Now I sit at the monitor and work the digital tools. I can post-process color images with ease. No way I can do that with film. The commercial world of print meduim that produces everything with a screen involved loves the digital world, The Nikon D1 at $3600 (no lenses) is the least camera level they will use for their work. Still there are limitations. Digital pictures don't rotate very well. If the axis of the image is wrong a 10 degree rotation will produce a junk a image. "Double exposure" is common in outdoor plus flash. The combination produces poor quality images. You must determine the image you want to print before you take the picture. With digital it is better to be too close than too far away. Using film and a good film scanner($2500) would seem to produce the best of both worlds. Working from prints and a scanner requires that you have a print as large as you want to produce. If I were doing commercial work today I would shoot both media and be able to chose the elements I wanted from each source. So, to be complete in my knowledge and explore the limits of image processing I am working with a "fu%#ing" digital camera as you refer to my tools (toys).