A lot of people have been talking about my post about Replichrome on my main blog. If you haven't seen it, the link to it is here:
Why You Shouldn't Care If I Shoot Film
I think we can all agree on one thing--if you really want to enrage a group of photographers, have this debate!!
In any case, I sincerely apologize if I hurt anyones' feelings.  I certainly didn't mean to--I was just posting about a system that works for ME.  I am not a film expert, and I don't claim to be.  For me, film is expensive, difficult to shoot quickly, and risky since I'M NOT AN EXPERT AT IT.  I truly believe that if you are an expert at film, like many of my friends are, Jose Villa, Lane Dittoe, and others among them, than that is what you should shoot.
While I LOVE the look of the images film can produce, I have found that when I (me myself and I ONLY) shoot it, I am slower to catch the moment, make technical mistakes sometimes because I'm used to another system, and bleed cash.  That's why Replichrome is good for me. 
 In any case, since many of you have asked and emailed, here are my side by side comparisons.  At this wedding last year, I shot film side by side with digital to really see if I could reproduce a similar look and feel.  I WAS NOT ABLE TO DO THIS until I tried with Replichrome.  While the results may not be perfect, for me, they achieve the look I liked about film and will make a nice addition to my repertoire of processing styles.
Feel free to respectfully leave comments and link to this post if you wish, but please do not email me anonymously to tell me I suck because plenty of you have already done that today so I already know :)
In each of the shots below, one shot is my Contax 645, and the other is digital processed with Replichrome: