Originally Posted by scheimfluger_77
I see what you are saying, and in a perfect world, that's just the way I'd want it to be. My feeling is that we are talking about a very tiny crowd of people who are able to appreciate, and willing to buy, a print of an image that originated from film and processed in a fully analogue environment, just because of it. There is no denying that today, some of the most beautiful prints are produced using hybrid processes. Sandy King's carbons, Paul Taylor's, Jon Goodman's, Lothar Osterburg's photogravures are just a few examples. Whether any of the images were shot using film is almost irrelevant to the prospective buyer. So, what I really see, is a market dominated by committed photographers who are using film AND digital, to create handmade prints, in a fully analogue and hybrid manner, that are beautiful, relevant and collectable. The important distinction, for ME is: analogue/hybrid printing and fully digital printing, not film vs digital photography/capture.
From my personal standpoint, and as an example, I am now exclusively focusing on copper plate photogravure, using a hybrid process. Why? Because even with some digital thrown in, the process is a bitch to master, unique, and the prints absolutely beautiful. They stand out and that's not something that anyone wants to or can do. From a marketing perspective, it matters. Most of the images are from film and some from digital. NOBODY could tell the difference on paper, and NOBODY really cares. That's reality. What they are buying is an image that moves them, printed on beautiful art paper, using a process that is laborious, time consuming, frustrating at times, expensive, but again, the end result are gorgeous, unique, handmade prints and that's where a lot of the value lies.