One interesting thing with digital photography that is often over-looked when making comparison to film is that, while the film eventually gets scanned, it takes place under very controlled conditions using PMT based drum scanners were disk storage is not an issue.
As an example, a few years back when I was planning the budgeting for storage space for a stock agency I worked for, I did a blind test where I printed out a few 8x10 where the originals came from 4x5's scanned with our drum scanner, but in one copy the resulting tiff was outputted directly and in the other a high quality Jpeg where user. No other processing separated the prints. Even blown up in PS, one could not see any visual artifacts on the Jpeg.
Yet, when these prints where presented to the art director, he immediately select the one from the tiff file.
When asked why, he said the selected image have a much better depth separation, which I only saw after having been told about it. The jpeg simply looked flatter that the tiff as if the jpeg process seem to have compressed the dynamic range of the image.
Now this was several years ago using PS 4. Better processing engines may have improved the jpg compression etc.
But, as new crops of professionals enter the food chain, who may never have worked with film based material, I think we will lose the ability to see the differences because we aren't tuned into them.
Just my rant.
