sorry to sound like a stick in your craw ( seems that we sometimes but heads here on apug )
but i wasn't arguing about whether or not he used a digital hasselblad or whatever, i was specifically talking about
his 35mm frames that were very large.
and i still don't really see what the issue is ...
if someone wants to print ( or have his/her work printed ) that size good for them!
if they want to do that using old school technology ( wet darkroom ) good for them!
if they want to use modern hybrid technique .. good for them!
and if someone wants to pay money for these prints ( or look at them i n a gallery or museum ) that is great.
i am sure the people buying large prints, no matter how they are made, know exactly what they are paying for ...
for these people it is every bit an investment as it is something to look at on their wall ( or lend out ) ...
so, it still doesn't matter one bit to me ...
if someone suggested they were enlarging 35mm film &c and SELLING / REPRESENTING his/her work as that,
but it was something completely different ( digital hassy as you had mentioned ) that is something completely different.
its about trust, and it's not right to misrepresent one's work.
one sees a lot of that sort of thing online ... digi shots with fake film rebates added post-production ..
if this is what was being talked about in this thread, i would take issue, but large prints from film?
i'm fond of pointalist and impressionistic paintings, whats not to like about that sort of photograph?