Just foolin' round with a D300, some Calumet strobes and Photoshop. If digital has it's place... In the studio just might be it. Some photographers are so blindly dedicated to only their approach and their tools for photography that they never are willing to try anything new and end up claiming in ignorance, without reason, that what they do is just better. I simply am not that way. Digital or film, studio or location, if it's photography, I'm game. Though it's true that I almost always prefer film to digital in any given situation and ALWAYS prefer the look of film, digital sometimes is just what the doctor ordered for a task. Newspaper photojournalism is one example. Studio product photography is another. Though when I do shoot with digital I somehow always, without fail, find myself spending hours trying to emulate the look I get naturally with film. And still there remains a gap between what film is and what digital can only grasps for. Especially with highlights and skin tones. This photo of my friend and co-worker Heath is a prime example of a shot that looks just fine on digital or film... In the studio with complete control of exposure lighting. But I would still love to see this photo shot with my Polaroid 195 Camera on Fuji FP100 or with a Contax 645 Camera on Fuji Reala. Soon I will do a post comparing direct examples of real photographs taken both digitally and on film. The distinction is not merely scientific or technical. It's sensual. And it's found in the subtleties that define the difference between an image that is good and one that is truely great!