absolutely
I posted a photo of ansel standing between two prints form the moonrise negative..here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3302688/posts?page=10#10
when Im asked if I “used photoshop” on an image...I often refer people to that comparative image!
The usual watercooler experts know damn little of film negatives and paper print processing.
We’re a bit more than a decade from popular acceptance of digital cameras. The vast bulk of the film camera users had no clue as to film processing and know nothing of the techniques used to produced excellent prints.
My dad’s first enlarger was hand fabricated in post WWII displaced persons camp. The tube was a cut down brass artillery shell with hand cut helical slots engaging the pins on the focusing tube/lens board assembly. Have no idea where the condenser lens came from. The lens shutter assembly came from some folding camera that had to be manually cocked. Exposures were necessarily long. I still have most of the pieces as well as some very sharp well zoned prints.
Back when I augmented my income selling art prints I’d spent days planning the bw print and a very long night to get to achieve what I wanted, just one frame before making a limitrd production run and yet there was still a loser or two.
At last count I have boxed and stored five enlargers and accessories, a Minox the smallest.
Personally I welcome the whiz-bang digital image capture units. The Olympus 4:3 still my favorite if now semi obsolete.
Know any body interested in a vintage Contax II with NICE lenses or a Leica f red dot?
God, I hate my android phone though.