i wanted to test out a new workflow recently and my friend Jim was kind enough to have me over and lend me his time and gear. for a long while, too long it feels, i’ve viewed my process in a film vs. digital dichotomy, as if there was some fundamental difference between the two. and there is a difference, yes, but a difference primarily in process, between immediacy and latency and how the mind’s eye reinterperts and understands an image when it isn’t there.

as for the film ‘aesthetic’, this for me distills into an appreciation of the past in a sense, for technologies that are no longer ‘useful’ yet beautiful and applicable nonetheless.

a three dimensionality, a texture, an imperfectness, film is beautiful because it was simply how we once worked, it has the gravity of history etched into it.

and as a unique process, distinguishable from digital, i will continue shooting on it when it’s right for the project.
but in the end, what is at the root of image making transcends the physicality of the medium itself, and in the aims of opening up the flood gates of creativity and voice i realize how such conversations of versus simply do not serve.

i went looking for some context to this thought and started to leaf through my copy of Marshall McLuhan’s ‘The Medium Is The Massage’. i found this:

“The past went that-a-way. When faced with a totally new situation, we tend always to attach ourselves to the objects, to the flavor of the most recent past. We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. We march backwards into the future.”
here’s Jim at his home on 0s and 1s.