Well this is a really interesting topic and so much more informative than arguing endlessly over bit depths and noisy pixels. For me I think I prefer the Leaf files out of the digital backs. But, I'm sorry overall I prefer David's film image !!!
What film/camera/scanner did you use David?
not sure it has a lot to do with the film because I processed a LOT in PS. subtle NR, subtle sharpening several time, Layers, duplicate background, soft light, saturation, you name it... and a lot of back and forth to get there... so it's not too much film anymore... I guess I was inspired that day... and I guess it would have been easier with a digital file... but I don't know I keep looking at my bag and I don't find any DB
The scan I don't know I should ask the lab.
The camera is mam645, 35mm, I use a film as neutral as possible to have more room for post-process, exposed to it's nominal value not to increase the contrast, 160NC portra. Flash. The image was pretty flat actually but really clean. And I figured out it's, to me at least, the only way to process as I want a scanned film. In only film time I did expose the 160 at 100 or even 80 and the 400 at 320 but then I can't get too much from a scanned file.
ps : and it certainly help to have a web size image...