That is most eloquently put CT. 8)
It's not that I'm anti digital (well not very much) although I do believe it has made lfe almost too easy for the pro, as there is little presure remaining to capture that elusive moment as a quick peek at the preview and the histogram will tell you if all's well. I guess I still feel that it was the mastery of the "mystical alchemy" that allowed us to charge a hefty fee and stand proud knowing that we were offering something far beyond that which a client could achieve.
In the modern era it's only by using a large format camera, the very very best glass and a ridiculously expensive digi back that lets me offer that "far and above" level of quality.
Using digi capture for work means I take probably less than 2% of my output on film these days but it's still that 2% that I get any real sense of satisfaction out of. Why? I don't think it really comes down to the choice of silver crystal or pixel, as I can achieve a very similar quality of end image either way and digi is certainly far cheaper. For me I think the answer lies in the fact that it IS harder to produce the results on film and somehow that makes it more worthwhile.
Does that make me mad or just stupid? dunno :lol: but as long as someone still makes film I'll be giving them the dosh I earn by turning my back on it.
