Here's one where film (or my knowledge of what to do with it) would have been far, far superior to digital. I like the look of this log, but the digital photo is way too crisp. In film, I'd have shot it with a Bergger, Efke or Foma product and processed it in something like Rodinal. Unless of course I already had Delta 100 loaded, which I would have processed in Microphen.
But I had a digital camera in my hand. So I made an effort at aging it. Clearly needs more work. Problem is, I don't think I'm even close to what I see in mind. What I see is something like a 1915-20 bridge between pictorialist and literalist photograph, where the details are a little soft, but recognizably photographic. When I get there, if I don't get frustrated and go on a hate-stupid-digital rant and threaten to throw away the computer and the D200 and shoot only LF wooden cameras with 100-year-old lenses, it should be a pretty satisfying moment.
