Quentin Tarantino and his crew are obviously making big fuss about resurrecting Panavision Ultra 70mm format (2.76:1) for his new film Hateful Eight (or H8ful Eight or Hateful 8 or however they prefer to write it). This is claimed to be the widest and biggest (by frame size) film format ever used. (From the useless facts department: one of the widest commonly used photographic cameras Fuji G617 uses 6x17 format which is 2.83:1 - very slightly wider than the Panavision Ultra).
On one hand - it's definitely nice to pay some respect to what has been done before, shoot film proudly, tinker with exotic lenses that sat on the shelf for nearly fifty years, do the all-analog screenings in roadshow format, etc.
On the other hand - I find it strange when a piece of creative work, which a movie no doubt is, is promoted using the medium on which it's shot. To me it somehow devalues the film itself, like the content or the great work of actors is not worth mentioning - but the film stock and lenses and projectors are. Of course some breakthrough technologies surface from time to time which add something to our experience - think of 3D for example or the hyperrealistic 48 frames per second (which was actually deemed not-so-cinematic). Probably the very first 3D films were loudly advertised to be 3D and offer new experience, I don't even remember it any more.
For me it has always been content over form. Lately I've been shooting regularly with lens made in the fifties - should I start advertising my photography based on that? I feel the opposite - I very very rarely discuss anything related to photographic gear, let alone making posts like "what's in my camera bag".
I've been discussing Polaroid and New55, but I find it to be a bit different - rather than promoting my work based on the material I shoot on, it adds something to the photographic process that's not achievable otherwise (to be exact, Polaroid/peel apart film introduces a lot of serious restrictions which lead you to work in a specific way - which is worth learning in my opinion).
There's another reason for photographers to work using some exotic process - it adds to the uniqueness. Not many photographers are using wet plate collodion process for example, if you do it and throw in a huge camera, you can be famous just based on that. Another aspect is that exotic processes make your outcome rare, rare in a sense that it's not easy to make huge number of uneditioned prints of it. All else being equal, I, too, would prefer silver gelatin print over inkjet. Signing and editioning is just another way to add rarity to the work.
I've written myself to a point where it's hard to wrap up. What exactly did I say? That I disapprove promoting your work based on camera/material, but adding rarity/uniqueness by using exotic process is OK? Possibly. Your thoughts are welcome, dear (rare) reader.