Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
A DSLR is not the answer. In its blithe automation and speed, it would only entice you to make many, many images and thus draw the whole job out, especially if you shoot bursts and the frames have very little intimacy or differences; professional editors would delete 300 and save just 4 being so ruthless over photographers' laissez-faire with these ubiquitous things. You're lucky then that the editing you do will comprise of maybe a few rolls of film and if technique is good, they'll be very, very sharp pics suitable for reproduction and printing to quite large sizes.
I was waiting for somebody to say this But such thoughts can easily become stubbornness I feel.

Looking at the last photographer's images, shot on a DSLR, they are naturally and appropriately free of any kind of compositional artifice. They work for their directness and clear interaction with the subject.
It's of course very self-indulgent to be striving for artful compositions under the circumstances, and the reason I took this on was partly to try and free my photography of contrivance.

Sent the Portra off for development today and will make a decision about the use of the Pentax when I see them.

I'd hope this thread can stir some debate about 'idealism vs. realism' regarding the use of film photography in these situations. I'm not giving up on using it yet, but trying to determine how much of it is simply about ego - as TooManyShots hinted at in his first post.