Robert
If I have conceived of the image, carried through with the exposure either on film or digital, processed it either in the fume-room or image processing program, and am presenting it for your viewing, why would it not be my picture?
If the print or screen image as presented matches the image I visualized on location, it is most clearly "my" image. This is the very essence of photography.
Perhaps I am not understanding your point.
A bit of background~
I closed my last fume-room in the mid-1980s, and I must say that my interest in personal photography dwindled. In fact, I pretty much dropped out of photography for the better part of a decade. After a couple of exhibitions, mostly of earlier work, demand picked up and commercial and magazine shooting recommenced, but still I did realtively little highly personal work.
This began to change when I was able to get scans of my work, first through Kodak PhotoCDs, then my own scanner, though the digital darkroom was a bit crude in the early '90s. It was great for learning and that would serve me well. Now I have over a decade of image processing, and do considerable writing on the subject.
The breakthrough came with the Nikon CP990 about three years ago. Working with large scans, I had no confidence that real work could be done with a mere 3.34MP. I was very wrong. I have not shot a frame of 35mm since that date though I continue to shoot medium format but have begun to wonder why. The final magazine shoots of my career were designated for digital delivery by the publisher. They were shot with the CP990 for a large format, glossy Britsh magazine and ran full page width. They reproduced as well as any other magazine shoot.
Now having moved up to the 5MP CP5000, I make great 13" x 19" 329mm x 483mm prints of outstanding quality on a top of the line Epson photo printer.
My run-of-the-mill print is on par with the portfolio prints made in the fume-room.
Using the top quality paper, printing costs are considerably less than in the fume-room. A portfolio print back then was at least a full day's meticulous work and a box of paper and attendant chemistry. With a calibrated monitor, the first print is always a keeper. Also, I print selectively, so cost is a minor consideration. My monitor screen is roughly equivalent to 11" x14".
Kodak gold blank CDs are about $0.70 Canadian, with a long life expectancy. All digital images are backed up to CDs. There is a complete set on this machine and a second set on the workstation. On the other hand, I have only one set of colour film negatives and they are fading year by year. I wish I could back them up.
DVD burners have just edged under $200CDN, though high-end burners are still in the $500 - $700 range. They will hit critical mass - probably in the next 12 months - at which point I will go that route. At this point, all my digital images will fit on four DVDs, so that will be an extra layer of redundancy.
As per longevity, the media probably will see a far longer life than I. When compared to the personal value of the originals, spending seventy cents a month is too minimal to be considered.
The newish workstation was quite expensive, but it does far more than photography. It does heavy duty rendering of animation, video editing sound editing and other forms of multi-media content-creation. It is networked to this elderly machine, that does e-mail and music production.
It would have been purchased regardless of whether I was using film or digital. It is well suited to Photoshop, but that is a bonus.
The paper and ink I use has a time to noticeable fading of 15 years in one case and a quarter of a century in the other. Triple that to find the point where the print needs restoration. Again, I will probably fade before my pictures.
If I decide to go after the art print market, I will go for a printer using pigment inks and archival papers with a century until noticeable fading. Epson makes them in 13", 24" and 44" widths using either roll paper or cut sheets. Not a problem.
About B&W. It is simply not a factor in my work.
When I began as a kid, it was only B&W but for most of the later part of my career, I shot all B&W jobs on colour negative, printing on Panalure panchromatic paper.
Often it was decided AFTER the shoot that the picture really should have been colour. Amazing the look on an editor's face when I said "No problem, do you want a print or a chrome?"
The medium is not the message. It is not film or digital at issue. The quality of the work you see is a matter of the photographer's skills. Either film or digital can produce images of transcendent quality or abysmal quality.
larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/