Currently, I’m amazed by the 3d-ness of emulsions, and how something so small can contain so much wonder. How if you were to look at a piece of film sideways, and microscopically, it would have little hills and valleys on it that correspond to the edges of the image.

I’ve fallen way over the line on the fetishing of film, lately.

But yes, my opinion is what it is - a lot of hot air.

I just can’t for the life of me see that any particular aspect of photography needs life breathed into it. There are so many opportunities within the entire realm of this craft that applying a photoshop filter or selectively desaturating a digital file to evoke the effect of another medium that is just as accessible makes me nautious and, well, a little agitated.

Making a digital file this arbitrary non-color (at least to me) is suspect. I see the results and wonder why they didn’t just use the right tool for the job. Maybe that is a belligerant opinion but it isn’t related to the dogma that film is any kind of “dying art”. However, the shrill “Film is Not Dead!” crowd isn’t helping. Quantifying any superiority of one way or another is just a waste of time. There is certainly much to do with emulsion. It’s all just light anyhow.

Thanks for the link, Aaron.

mjulius, the thing I keep thinking about in regards to using film is that digital wasn’t an absolutely necessary advancement, and it didn’t come about to breathe life into a dying art. there’s still so much exploring left to be done with real emulsions.