This has been on my mind awhile.
when shooting film and printing, we never saw the nitty gritty of what an image
no 100% view, no histogram, just a negative
Sometimes a bad negative helped to create a specific look
accidents happened in printing
If you look at a RA4 print you hardly ever see a pure white.
Many people say that you can recreate a film effect in Photoshop, but alot of times it's not about the final look itself but rather the process that led to discovering that look.
Which may explain the joys of the Holga and Lomo with all its accidental light leaks?
The unexpected nature of film grain of different films is not the same as putting a gaussian distribution of noise on an image in post production.
Many photographers have a specific look in their images, a certain aesthetic.I find that digital photography has a tendency to stymy the discover of one's aesthetic due to the current concentration on technical perfection when exposing an image.
One thing I noticed is that printing an image out and seeing it on a screen is a very different experience.
I am not saying that people should go back to film and experiment with it (although that would help) but to take a similar mentality towards digital photography, of taking these technical imperfections and playing with them. Embracing the limitations of digital photography and exploring the possibilities.There are certain interesting effects that come from the quirks of digital photography (banding, hot pixels on a sensor, sensor dust, high speed ISO noise, high dynamic range in shadow areas,pixellation from interpolation)
Perhaps then people may develop more interesting styles with digital photography instead of mimicking film effects.
Just a few thoughts I wanted to share.