In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


"Bill, I can take shoot a roll of TriX and develop it in D-76 1:1 and
get one look and then stand develop another roll in 1:100 Rodinal for
an hour and get another look and then develop another roll in coffee
(Caffenol) for yet another look. It's fun. You cannot duplicate the
experience or the look with digital. Film has a unique look. It is not
better or worse than digital. It is just different."

He was referring to *his* experience, and that's a perfectly valid
claim.

However, each of those rolls of Tri-X is limited to its singular and
unique developing process, whereas a single digital exposure can be
processed with as many different film emulations you care to experiment
with, without loosing the experimental experience.

True, that. But is that what Russell wants to do? Shoot and process
in such a way that he has unlimited revision choices, or shoot and
process in such a way that he has to do it right the first time?

he's claiming digital can't duplicate the look. that's false.

The point, in this case, is not what *can* be done, but Russell *wants
to do*. I'm sure Russell knows the options available in digital, but
he chooses to go a different way because "It's fun".

he clearly doesn't know, or he wouldn't make false claims.

Why on earth would anyone object to this? Or label his choice as the
"mediocre" way to go?

because what he wrote is factually false.