>>3268445Digital is great up to a point. Materiality has to be produced with digital work, but with film, you have lots of already prepared materials to fuck with.
For example, if you expose a silver gelatin print about a stop, maybe a stop and a half under, and then once developed hold it up to the sun or a light box (so that the image is facing you, and the blank side is facing the light source), lots of details that can't be made out on the print itself will be revealed. It's still in the print, but only backlighting reveals it. A digital equivalent that doesn't involve layering prints on perspex or something doesn't seem to exist.
A lot of young photographers are using film in a more experimental way now and are bringing out some great stuff using this sort of logic, I think digital has kind of "freed" the old processes to people really experimenting with it.
