>>3680982uh huh. in two years you're gonna be talking up the X100M or whatever the successor will be, and all of the shallow little rendering characteristics that make these current images however briefly charming will be laid out in the sun, naked and apparent and clumsily obvious. you and i have both been here, doing a photography, long enough to have seen the high watermark for digital quality undergo several generational changes. And as a result, photos that were previously the cream of the crop as far as IQ is concerned now look dated and old and a little garish in their limitations. In other words, your photos are going to look very 2019 in 2025.
Film, on the other hand, would suit your timeless southern gothic imagery quite well. It's a technology that, for better and for worse, has matured. Color print film will likely never see another revolution, and so the stuff you see today will look the same in 30 years. I think your work would benefit from this. You, for the most part, exclude a lot of contemporary semiotics from your work. Most of these photos could have been shot 40 or 60 years ago, and knowing the south, you'll likely be able to shoot most of these photos in 2060. What I actually enjoy about your work is sort of the light, ethereal quality they have, like a ghost passing through a town that it can't quite remember. These photos are deeply tied to place, but not necessarily a time, which is great. The problem is that by shooting digital you anchor these bitches to a narrow 4 year span like a balloon tied to an anvil. shoot film and cut the temporal string.
that's just my $0.01 james, disregard as you will.
