Quote Originally Posted by Alan Johnson View Post
I don't think the public including me could tell a factory copy from an old master (in appropriate surroundings).
I venture to suggest that most film photographers care about grain and sharpness, not just those labelled as you have done.

To get back on topic, I'm interested in reproducing the Panatomic-X appearance and it seems either it cannot be done or it is not known how to do it.
Do you imply that photographs shot with newer and more modern films are not the real thing, but merely a copy of what it could have been?

What I'm saying is that I see way too many photographers who care excessively about grain and sharpness, and forget to practice to become photographers that produce prints that have something to say. A good photograph does not begin and end with 'that special film', or any other material of our choosing. It is something much much larger than that, to find ways to communicate something that is important, to tell a story, or to provoke emotion.

Sure, the journey is important to the photographer, and I do understand why someone might seek perfection in their choice of film, but if anybody seriously believes that switching from Panatomic-X to Ilford Delta 100 is going to make any sort of fundamental change to how successful their photograph is, then perhaps it's time to step back and take a good look at the big picture?

Are there differences between the two films? Sure there are. But why do they matter so much?