>>4137350>imperceptible level of detailWe know, you live in a 500sqft "tiny house" and think the entire point of photography is getting pseudononymous "recognition" on the internet to no immediate personal benefit (you just generate traffic for instagram which only helps their own revenue)
And you like to imagine that if you ever printed something, it would be in a gallery with a red rope in front of it, and people would never look at it that closely anyways, because all your recongition would have finally gotten goldblat silverblum to knock on your door and tell you that you're the next winogrand.
However some of us like things that can't be altered by server owners/governments or lost forever if a bit flips. Digital can lost longer in theory, and is theoretically more secure and impervious to alterations and forgery with cryptographic signing and the copies-only distribution, but in practice people don't put in the relatively expensive word to make that the case, while analog media survives everything but the natural disasters that would destroy your backups anyways. And there's something to be said for looking at an actual photo, not a screen's attempt at displaying one. Film and camera sensors can capture detail and colors that most screens are physically incapable of displaying, but printers can handle just fine.
