I started out with film (at my age, what else was there ) and moved to digital when the Nikon D100 came out. The problem was, with 35mm film, and with a 6 Megapixel sensor, I could never really achieve the print sizes I envied.My comment wasn’t aimed at photographers who learned on film, battled with low speed tranny and mis-matched polaroids, or camera shake in low light. You know your stuff and your work is excellent. I was taking a pot shot at the digital upstarts who think they have invented photography and consider themselves geniuses.
I not sure what you means by that Martin, surely you can print a scanned file to produce a print you can hold in your hands.Andrew: I print all of my own stuff and would never let a lab print for me. The print is the most important part of the process. This is also why I am never satisfied with just scanning my negs, - I have to have a print that I can hold in my hand.
That was my point. I know a traditional master printer who would make anything around 27 exposures, making amazing prints with everything clear and well balanced.A print is made under the enlarger or a light source, a Digital print is made essentially on the computer before sending to the printer, not borning, both are different, equally enjoyable.
It's a different aesthetic, as a darkroom worker that's just my personal my opinion and I can and have made the same prints digitally as well as in my darkroom. Neither is difficult if you know how to process & print but it's far easier to change reality with digital imaging.The work involved in either process is technical, demanding and, in the end, immensely rewarding but never boring
But I, for one, am not talking about changing reality. What I do digitally is exactly the same as a "wet" printer. If you want "reality" then you need to leave every dust spot and imperfection in the negative and not make any corrections using multigrade paper and filters. Not forgetting that a B&W print never reflects reality; after all, the world is really in colourNeither is difficult if you know how to process & print but it's far easier to change reality with digital imaging.
Oh, and another thought, or maybe a question: If I make an analogue negative with an LF film camera, and the final print is made on analogue silver paper, does it really disqualify the image from being "better" simply because I used a digital process instead of an enlarger? Is my skill with Photoshop really "inferior" to that of an "optical" printer? After all, if all the gallery visitor gets to see is the finished silver print, do you really think it makes any difference how it was produced? When I send a file to Ilford to print, they have no input on the creative process, they take the file that I created with much love and hard work and simply put it on paper.
Damien Hirst may design his works of art but he employs rafts of people to actually create them. Guess who gets the glory and the lion's share of the sale price; it's certainly not the skilled technicians and engineers who fabricated his design. And nobody questions whether it was really Damien Hirst's "work"