Umm, we're looking at a scanned JPEG on a computer monitor. That is, unless you happened to be staring at the print itself when you wrote your post. But your statement implies that this lovely image, and it is a great shot, would somehow be "less-than" had it been created by digital means. Is it necessary to elevate process above content here?
George,
Of course you know what film does, but allow me, for others, to state in long form why I'm so much in awe of the film photographer who actually does everything him/herself.
The direct reaction of photons with the silver salt inside a layer of gelatin gives a direct negative of the image. It requires no digital intervention for the analog representation of the incident light intensities to be discovered. Simply placing this film on the similarly sensitized paper, and re-exposing tho light, makes a series of corresponding inversely distributed silver grains embedded in the media, not just on it. Also this is the way that the pioneers of photography developed the art.
Of course, the modern digital camera can do wonders. However it does not force the photographer to be as contemplative in most instances. So use of film means a way of thinking and working that has the utmost respect for intent, need and end use. So it's not surprising that, in the end, there might be qualitative and stylistic differences dependent on the medium.
I know, for myself, at least, that in using 8x10 film, I scout the area more carefully, snap countless digital pictures of the compositions that compete for attention. Then follows time setting up the camera and choosing what's in the picture and from what height of camera and angle. With my digital cameras, most often, I'd be done in a few moments. The advantage for digital are the immediate translations of impulse. Now with 35 mm film cameras, photographers were able to frame fast and then capture fleeting moments. Still, the number of shots was limited, in general to 36. That still meant thinking more about the selection of when not to snap away.
So, yes, I do believe the medium and large format can make the most impressive images. Simply put, as one goes larger with film, the investment in the cost of the medium and its processing dictates the most care in choosing one's subject and whether one is ready to use up the film at that instant. Richard Learoyd's work with 8 foot high direct to film prints, for example, are the end result of the most careful decision making that hardly ever would be found with digital photography. Also, of course, the approachability of the prints with truth blended with reality, is hard to reproduce. As in real life, one can stare for 10 inches and the person in the portrait still is alive!
Add to that my respect and appreciation for the craftsmanship of those who do all this work themselves, I end up being grateful every time I see a picture that a darkroom photographer has shared with us.
My work, by necessity, is mostly digital. I'm trying my best to balance that with film, but really I'm a pretender. Maris is the real thing!
Asher