sorry for answering this late..
yes large format is equally unnatural and overdetailed.. when i talked about film i thought about 35mm -and i dont wear glasses nor recent eye testing suggested i need them... maybe its just my brain that simplify picture that comes into it so i see film as more close to my mental picture-who knows... i just know i never saw good black and white from digital-never ever-always weird plastic look and just dull grays and digital way of dealing with nuances, plus too sharp detail... maybe its that disbalance between superior detail and inferior shades of grey (because its not continuous as analog but simply digital 0 and 1) is what makes it unnatural. film is not better but more balanced-like some golden average in all aspects...
Originally Posted by retinax
Hmm motion picture aside, if you can see less detail in nature than in digital images in web resolution on a computer screen, you might need (new) glasses. Or are we talking about oversharpened detail that throws itself at the viewer? That's not inherent in the medium. It's a given that w.r.t. detail smaller digital formats look more like typical medium format film. Do larger film formats look equally unnatural for you? In any case, getting rid of detail is easy. Lens selection, digital blurring and fake grain in pp... I have little experience with simulating grain, but matching the grain aliasing from medium resolution film scans like in this thread is easy. These seem to be separate points from Olifaunt's who said it's not about the grain, though. And he talked about skies, so not about detail either.
I'm not sure why I as a film user find myself challenging arguments against digital here, I guess I want to hear the right arguments for film (and that the look can't be replicated digitally is't it IMHO), vagueness goes against my grain (ha!), as does when people don't fully explore the possibilities of the medium before judging it. Hope I'm not driving this thread further toward the dreaded film-vs-digital-debate.