NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - I had the extreme pleasure this week of attending an exhibition of photography by Christopher Burkett, whose images of nature are so breathtaking in their luminosity, color, and detail that many observers assume they are digitally enhanced. They are not; Burkett's photos are made on 8-inch by 10-inch color transparencies or medium-format film, without lens filters, and are masterfully printed without digital enhancement of any kind.

Some people resist the idea that the beauty and color captured by Burkett's camera actually exists in nature. Their skepticism says something important not just about our increasing alienation from nature, but also about our increasing acceptance of digital photography and digital image enhancement through software.

Fortune.com More on technology

We know that amazing things can be done to tweak photographs: repairing flaws and blemishes, sharpening colors and contrast, even adding or subtracting subject matter to create an ideal image. (Remember 20 years ago when National Geographic moved the Egyptian pyramids closer together? Or more recently when Time digitally darkened a cover shot of O.J. Simpson to make him appear more sinister?)

But our acceptance of new imaging technology comes at the cost of our trust in the relationship between eye and photo. How curious that, when confronted by photographic images of nature's exquisite beauty, many of us assume they can't possibly be, well, natural.

Burkett has a "no digital prints" symbol on his web site, www.christopherburkett.com. And that started me wondering: Does digital photography and image manipulation debase the true art of photography? Or is the digital camera a miraculous new tool that will allow photographers to achieve new levels of art?

Perhaps both.

And the question arose in my mind, if Ansel Adams -- arguably the most accomplished and certainly the most popular nature photographer of the past century -- were alive today, would he go digital?

"Far be it from me to speak on his behalf, but since I did have contact with him in earlier days, I know that he was a smart and aggressive guy," said Richard LoPinto, vice president for SLR camera systems at Nikon Inc. LoPinto has more than 30 years experience at Nikon, during which time he has seen digital cameras emerge and eventually overtake film cameras.

"He shot with a large-format camera and had the patience to stand around waiting for hours for the perfect shot, but he also used our Nikon FM series cameras," LoPinto continued. "I would like to speculate, and it's purely my personal opinion, that were he with us today he would be really taken by the technology and would be at the forefront."

"In fact," LoPinto said, "I would go so far as to say that if Rembrandt and Picasso and other great artists of the past were alive today, they would not be able to resist the idea of using digital technology. Think of Norman Rockwell. All of his art was based on photographs he made. Conversely, some of the great photographers of our time emulate the techniques of great artists," LoPinto said. "When I take portraits I like to use what you might call Rembrandt lighting, and a digital camera is a wonderful tool for experimentation."

"So, Ansel Adams, yeah, I think he'd love it,' LoPinto said.

And that leads to the hypothetical question, which Nikon digital camera would Ansel Adams use?

"Considering his typical tendency to use high-quality, large-format cameras and his desire that it be handy and convenient, I suspect he would be attracted to our D100, for its size and versatility and overall digital image quality."

But, I asked, is it really possible, with relatively affordable digital cameras, to take a digital image that equals the quality of film? And at what level, in terms of megapixels, does a digital camera equal the resolution of film?

"I recall from the early days of calculating an equivalency, it was thought that with 10 megapixels you would have a digital image that is competitive with a film image," LoPinto said. "But it was a long time ago when that speculation took place. Since then, digital technology has developed dramatically, and many of the artifacts that were associated with digital photography in those early days have gone away. The technology has changed so much."

YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS Follow the news that matters to you. Create your own alert to be notified on topics you're interested in. Or, visit Popular Alerts for suggestions. Manage alerts | What is this?

"Today you'll find countless photographers who are using medium to medium-high resolution sensors, like the CCD in our D1X, that take a 5.9 megapixel image that can be interpolated up to 10 megapixels."

In other words, the image sensors in today's high-end digital cameras add information to the shot that the camera otherwise can't see. The actual pixel count is merely one factor in the overall quality of the camera. The optics, the metering, the various controls and the built-in software all are at least as important as the pixel count.

"I like to say that at the onset of digital photography, it was the megapixel battle. Now it's the megapixel scuffle," LoPinto said. "With new technology we can sharpen images dramatically without changing the spatial resolution of the chip."

Many of Christopher Burkett's photos are printed on paper measuring 30 inches by 40 inches or larger. With most digital cameras in the consumer range, say, 3 megapixels or lower, the camera can't capture enough information on its own to make a print that big. The image would not scale; there would not be enough pixels to fill the larger printing space, and the image would break up, or pixelate.

But as digital cameras and sensors improved, so too did computers and photo-editing software. A new category of scaling software emerged to allow giant prints with out digital artifacts. "Prints as large as 30x40 are well within the realm of today's high-performance SLR digital cameras," LoPinto said. "Making prints the size of 11 by 14, or 11 by 17, or 20 by 24, even 30 by 40, it's a piece of cake. To get there, however, requires an operator of considerable skill."

It also requires big bucks not just for the camera and lenses and large-format photo printers, but also for a powerful computer and special software. And it also requires great patience to learn and master the software.

Recently, an industry analyst who follows the digital camera market made the bold prediction that film camera sales would dwindle into insignificance by 2008. Digital cameras already outsell film cameras. Digital camera sales are growing by double- and even triple-digit percentages each year, while film camera sales are flat or declining. But will film cameras really disappear?

"I find it hard to believe that film will disappear," LoPinto said. "There is still a very, very large audience that just won't do that kind of stuff [digital imaging], and film continues to play important role where time is not a serious factor. I will say, however, that digital will continue to grow. As digital grows in advanced technology and versatility, and as price points fall, digital cameras will gather a bigger and bigger audience. Even the most staunch film users will eventually add digital to their shooting scenarios. Whether it's a compact digital camera or an SLR, it's going to happen."