>>4240368>>4240372>>4240378It's funny how in photo land the concept of "quality" is regarded differently to the traditional understanding, which is actually a lot closer to how I perceive photo quality and what motivates me to use it.
"Quality" as you're describing it is more like accuracy; ie a digital camera will make a technically more correct rendering of a scene, usually with finer details visible, etc.
For me, I regard quality as the sum of the time and care, tools, materials and experience that go into the final output.
Is a timber dashboard in a car going to be lighter, safer in a crash, or longer lasting than the plastic one? Not at all. But does the "quality" come from the choice to use a rare material and the skill and care of a craftsman to sculpt it? Does it come from knowing that no two will ever be truly alike, even when made by the same person and to the same design?
I use film because the experience of using manual, beautiful tools, a rare and expensive medium, and the demands of skill and patience required to get to a well finished output, are a joy to me and deepen my connection to the work. They give it quality.
>sharpness is a bourgeois concept 