Quote Originally Posted by omaha View Post
I think Matthew is right on target with his thoughts there.

I'll add that one of the things that brought me back to film is the notion of "authenticity".

I'll grant that it is entirely possible to create, using purely digital photography, just about any "look" that can be created in the analog world. And even if you can't get 100% of the way there, you can get 99.9%.

But even if you do, you are creating a simulation of something else. Why create that when you can create something authentically real?

That's what I'm in it for.

Yes it is, "just about it". But it's a lot — damned lot, much harder to do. Like others in my field, I do not intentionally set out to do this in my hybridised workflow; the authenticity and grace of analogue hanging beside the cold, hard edge of digital puts things in brutual perspective: producing prints from both analogue and digital, I can say both have their own distinctive look and feel and I don't set out to make them one and same, why should I? Digi will never be bang on form the way film renders nuances of colour, texture and the softer, less-jarring delineation of lines than does an over-sharpened (today's latest craze) digital image.

One thing that caught my eye of KR's Shooting Film page was KR scanning 10,000 x 8,000 pixels from a 6x7 slide (!) The one question we are asking is Why??