Quote Originally Posted by alexhill View Post
I believe that how an image is made is directly tied to the conceptual aspect of any artwork. A viewer may ask "Why film?' and the answer must be relevant to the message of the image.
Because film has limits in the quantity that can be shot easily, film changes the way I interact with and think about my subjects. There is value in taking the time Karsh might have to make a portrait.

I'm not saying this can't be done digitally, but it's not the norm, nor is it digital's strong point.

Digital's strength is in democratization: everybody can do it, and with tools like the iPhone with it's PS app; nearly everybody will. From what I've heard 5mp phones are coming soon.

In art there is value in doing things that others can't or won't do.

Quote Originally Posted by alexhill View Post
Also the argument that digital prints can be cranked out quicker, thus reducing the value of the medium as a whole is kinda weak. The local shop near me can crank out a hundred chemical prints an hour on its machine. No difference than a commercial digital lab.
There is a huge difference between 100-an-hour and the production of a commercial digital lab that that can do 1000's in the same time.

Automation is scalable but that beg's another question.

Why do I print by hand with an enlarger?

Because I can and do intend to create a fresh a interpretation each time. I don't resist the urge to "let each print find it's own personality".

I do resist the urge to create exact copies over and over and over. That is the antithesis of automation and digital technology.

In a world full of copies, it's nice to have something unique.