A couple of clarifications on the “integrity” of digital photography. First, it was Mike’s comment; I merely quoted him.

My interpretation of what he was saying was not that digital photography is necessarily lacking in integrity, but rather that digital photography doesn’t have any natural technical style. My reading is that Mike is suggesting that one could shoot film and automatically get a technical style based on the type of camera, type of film, type of processing, type of paper, etc., but with digital photography one has to specifically set out to create a technical style.

And (again, my interpretation) Mike suggested that simply mimicking “film style” with digital is probably doomed to failure. We can still recognize wood-grain plastics despite the best efforts of industry, and I think that he is saying (by implication) that we will always be able to recognize film-style digital photos.

My own feeling – and my motivation for quoting Mike – is that instead of trying to make convincing film-style results from digital photos, perhaps we should instead accept digital photography as its own medium. Given a choice between imitation film and genuine digital, my personal preference is for the genuine.