Since I don't have any person IRL to talk about these things, I will share it with you... Started photography as a kid with some instamatics, Pentax zooms and if I recall correctly, Kodak Gold and Fuji Superia. But my family bought a digital Ixus in 2000 and ever since I always shot digital. But I always loved the look that only film could give me, so I started with analog photography again, mainly with Tri-X and toy cameras, but switched to Olympus OM system instead, mainly because of the quality the final image would give me. I still shoot digital with a Canon 5D, but mostly with my Zuikos attached with an adapter. My Digital workflow is with Lightroom and mostly Alienskins Exposure 4. Why am I telling you this? Well, today I scanned my 4 latest rolls of Tri-X, just to be able to get a digital contact sheet and to be able to archive my negatives in a better way. So I scanned a strip using an old HP scanner, at 300dpi, auto everything else. And the result gave me a mixed feeling. I got Ilford MGV44m paper at home, and am very pleased, but the scans on the screen of my macbook pro just popped more than I would have expected. Sure the highlights and the blacks were cut to early, and the perceived sharpness was somewhat... "dull", But it really changed the way I want my real paper enlargements to look like the next time I go in to my darkroom! My guess is that the digital world and perhaps all the photoshopping I've done has in some way destroyed my preferable "film look" into something fake. Until now, all my darkroom work has been trying to get the most tones, get every information from the negative on to the paper, and now I think that maybe that has given me a rather dull image, missing contrast and pop. Looking at alot of photographers work, 90% of the time, it is online on my computer, So my next thing is to go to the library and look in photography books instead. Hoping to get a more natural way of looking at images, in the way the photographer wanted the print to look instead of the online version.