Simplify,
You can start by selling your P45+ and start shooting 8x10 negative film if that lovely creamy feel you seem to enjoy in Soth's work is what you are after. Now don't be surprised when you see the film at 200% as we are used to doing so with digital cameras and then you start to question why there is not as much detail/info as Jim's nice shot of the train station. Digital just has that sterile(clinical) quality to it. This is the same as HDTVs versus HQ tube equivalents as they tend to show way too much info and the brightness level can be a eye sore at times.
Print it them both and that's another story. The 8x10 will just feel nicer not better these are just the properties of a Large Format film.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205411\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oscar, to some point I agree with you, digital seems to have too much information or better put it seems less messed up in the way it records information.
I think that's where a lot of us see dgital as more clinical, then again I think some of our asthetics are changing.
Read any forum about photography and somebody will always bring up noise. Now go scan any film in any format pushed a stop and look at the shadow "noise" and l if it was a digital capture it would get raked over the coals.
I can't. won't comment on Alec Soth's work, other than to say I like a lot of it and it's his or anyone's choice to shoot with any camera they see fit.
Then again, I know through a lot of experimentation that with some work, almost any decent digital capture can be made to emulate almost any film. Whether that work is worth the effort or not is up to artist.
But can you tell me of these images which is digital and which is film?
You know me and might be able to, but for the people that hire me, it's never been a thought what film, digital, camera or format I shot with.
At least not in the hiring stage.
JR
P.S. For the record, I love the Detriot train station shot, both variations.
