Ok as the thread title mentions.... Half of the stuff on my wall, is by me in one shape or another, the other half are digital/film prints from other photographers (usually unknown people that I have met who are trying to sell their work at the exhibits etc... ). I tend not to buy large prints (wall space being a premium) and also the cost associated with large prints. That is not to say that I don't value or understand why large prints are expensive. I think they justify their costs. However I do not differentiate any cost difference between digital or film. I just see both as mediums and the paper prints of both as recording mediums. That being said .... I've a friend who shoots film regularly and is quite militant against digital. He refuses to buy digital prints (which I personally find very sad and somewhat snobby) as he says (I'm quoting here) "I cannot place any value on something that can be copied at the push of a button 1000 times". Clearly he has never printed digital images and trying to navigate the quagmire of the modern color accurate workflow, understanding of paper luminance, color saturation etc... But it's an opinion that I believe is shared by other people from a visit to a photo gallery during the week. I got chatting with the photographer/owner of the gallery. He was telling me that quite a few people (who he felt were deeply interested in one print or another) would often ask what it had been shot on. When he would say digital they would try and haggle the price down. When he would say film... they would say nothing. Any opinions? Do you buy other photographers work? Do you differentiate between a film print or a digital print? Interested in what you guys have to say Tom.