Digital technology has made an enormous impact at the snapshot level, but whether it actually makes any difference in the way the photographer "sees" the image is rather doubtful. Aesthetically, many digital images are, to my eye, horribly oversaturated and oversharpened. That's a set back, but it's not the fault of the technology - it's simple misuse by the majority of photographers for whom impact counts for more than veracity.

Digital technology certainly makes some types of imaging fairly easy which weren't really feasible due to constraints imposed by film. Astrophotography is a particular example - high speed sensors and lack of reciprocity failure together with sophisticated image processing software written by astronomers for astronomers make it possible for amateurs to produce the sort of images which were once the preserve of major observatories. My interest in astronomy has been reinvigorated in the few months since I bought a DSLR.

For "ordinary" photography, image quality from the better DSLR / lens combinations is now on a par with or slightly ahead of 35mm film SLRs. However the images which look technically superior, to me, still come from medium format and large format film cameras. Meanwhile, in the mass market, high street "enprints" seem to be just as unreliable as they ever were. Better or worse? How do you comapre apples and bananas? Just accept that they're different.