This is what I am talking about...

Modern Digital photography is really good. almost any digital camera will produce images so lifelike and so 'accurate' that one might just as well be looking at the subject itself right in front of you. As long as you remain within the size that the image file can be enlarged to you are unlikely ever to see any trace of the technology that went into the creation of the image.

Well, I am not sure that it always a good thing. even in the past when the choices were fewer I would often choose to use a grainy fast film, or a particularly saturated one and I did it because it produced for me a connection between the process and the end result.

It is like looking at the brush strokes in a painting, or the ridges left by a potter in the clay of a pot on the wheel. It does not reflect badly on the photographer that the process is evident, rather it shows that they are confident of their ability to use processes that have something to add to the whole.

This image was taken by John Custer - www.johncusterphotography.com he's a good friend of Frank, a friend of mine and on his website there are some fascinating images taken using Polaroid. Frank is in advertising and he put together a great ad for me illustrated with two of John's pictures.

I cannot quite explain why but hopefully this will strike a chord: You could do this digitally but if you did it would have no integrity, it would be a fabrication rather than the interesting amalgamation of the photographer's vision and the material's limitations.