Ah, the age old discussion of digital photography and its impact on the general photographic community. I think the author of Chapter Seven explores the implications of digital imaging very well, detailing many important aspects of the "argument". Yes, there is a difference in the way a digital image is made and stored, but besides that, it is still a field of light of varying chromatic and luminous intensity. As far as "truth" is concerned, I think we have beaten that argument to death. There is a comparative amount of truth embedded in an original digital image as there is in a chemical image. No matter the medium, there is going to be manipulation. It is a fact of human existence, I suppose.
As such, it really comes down to a matter of personal preference. In my case, I prefer film. I like the idea that the image is human readable and tangible. The tonal response and grain of certain print films is suited to my personal preference as well.
• When viewing digital (including chemically printed digital) and chemical images (including digitally printed chemical images), do you personally read them differently?
