I think we have some different ideas about the process...I suppose I am largely thinking that most digital cameras are purely electronic beasts, they will focus the lens, set the aperture, wind the film...oh, wait...
reset the shutter and so on (though not all...certainly some of the MFDB's and the RD-1, M8 etc allow more involvement). The light hits the CCD or CMOS and then usually goes through an IR filter, then an AA filter (again, usually), then the camera decides based on probability and complex algorithms, what color that particular area should be. It is an educated guess, albeit one that is extraordinarily accurate in the best cameras. Then, some sort of voodoo goes on in the camera and the data from the sensor is prepped for writing onto a storage device and an image is popped up onto the LCD. Later, you take this data and copy the 1's and 0's onto a computer, and a you bring up the image on your monitor, introducing a whole new set of educated guesses based on software and hardware calibration...again, extremely accurate in the best cases. There you can modify the data in a million ways through sophisticated software. You take eyedroppers and click on what you want neutral, you look at a graphic representation of the tonal range of the image and pull down and push up on that curve, shifting it at will...you have electronic noise averaged out or added to the image. Finally, you might decide to add little light pixels and little black pixels at the very smallest sizes in areas of tonal transition, so that your image appears to be sharper. Almost none of this is done by free hand -- it is all facilitated by extremely complex machines, churning through calculations at astounding speeds.
I just feel like I am more of a factor in what is going on in a film camera -- it's just me and chemical reactions -- generally the cameras are simpler -- many are entirely mechanical. I turn the lens to focus it, I turn the aperture ring to set it, I rotate the wheel to set the speed, I wind on the film when I have taken the photo. The same goes in the darkroom -- I load the reel, I mix the chemicals to my desired composition, I shake it the way I want, let it in there for the time I want. Once the negative is created, it is like being at the camera again -- I set the focus and image size, the aperture, and I use my actual hands to dodge or burn the prints. I place the image in the developer, agitate it by hand, decide when I want to stop the development, same with the fixer...do I tone or bleach? Again, it is either timed and done by hand, or selectively with a sponge or brush. Does it need spotting? I better get my ink and brush...
Believe me, I know there is a place for digital and a place for film, and that both can be equally representative of an artist's intention, I just feel that there is more of ME in a darkroom print or even film scan I make than there is in a digital print. And I know that many do not share that view, and that it would be easy to argue that you have less control in the film based process. However, it is a FEELING, and as such I don't have to justify it to you bozos! ;P
