It may also mean you can walk the streets of paris easier when the roll of film is used up

My other point was - and I agree exagerated by a bad example in my note - that if you have a limited amount of exposure, 12,24 or 36 on a film cassette - then each exposure will be more carefully considered - the consideration and composition of the imagary is, to me, the essence of the photograph - by making it possible to “blanket bomb” a subject or scene with an infinite number of snaps - again for me - nearly always means that the photographer is hoping for a lucky accident - serendipity is always a key tool in any photographers armory, but good accidental photographs are very rare.

I do not consider digital photograph progress, it is an alternative - people still ride horses, I prefer the train to the plane to get to Paris from Montpellier - although it is 50 years more antiquated technology - or is it - I worked with a 5×4 digital camera back on my Linhof in 1982 - we used it for test shots like with Polaroids - we shot on Ektachrome, many if not most, still do

If you are working with large format cameras, then there is the obvious point that comparatively, a large format camera will produce photographs of approximately 64 million pixels compared to around 20 million in the case of the most advanced digital cameras. And comparing large format cameras to “wappy snappy” digital masses etc is like comparing them to the photos of the old 110mm cameras. There is no comparison. Those old instamatics were every bit as “bad” as the digitals you happily slate, but to add insult to injury, using a film camera you could take 24 photos, spend around £10.00 on the purchase and production of the film, and end up with zippo. Because the film was destroyed by heat, or light or water….or you were just an appalling photographer. At least with a digital camera you instantly have an idea of what you have taken, and whether it’s a photo you want to keep, and if know you might be able to retake, rather than wait 10 days and be perhaps the other side of the world before realising you have no photographic memory at all. Personally, I think it’s rather “sad” that you compare photographs taken by large format cameras to any kind of “wappy, snappy” either digital or film, because it’s a bit like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Fiat Panda.

OK. So even the most advance digital camera cannot compare with large format cameras. No question. But I also take issue with you comparison that the film camera will produce what you see, whilst the digital produces from an “algorythm of efficiency”, it is most likely that with a film camera, the image you initially get from the camera, is what the film makers want you see as a result of their mix of chemicals. This doesn’t even begin to take into consideration grainyness when the photo is over enlarged…..which isn’t any different to the jpeg mish mash you describe and no more beautiful or helpful either, just a different kind of mash. And the photo from Kodak film will look different to the “identical” photo taken with Ilford or Agfa.

Yes Adams etc were exceptional artists and even, on occasion exceptional photographers. But what they produced was down to 100’s of hours of manipulation…… You can manipulate digital also, and you can take very good photographs using the same techniques and technical know how as you would with a film camera. But we are in the early stages of development. Perhaps you would have preferred that we never moved on from the camera obscura or the pinhole camera??

I notice that you have been to Paris, maybe you would have preferred to walk, or take a pony and cart? Rather than the car, or train or plane which I am sure you did take. Or do you simply accept progress in the mediums which suit you, and rubbish those that you don’t have any interest in?