Dektol in the Sandbox: I <3 Photography

Yeah, so other photography discussion forums are kind of depressing. I missed ILP more than the other boards.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6047/6373726291_a7ab3b970a_b.jpg
Nope, there's no LCD screen on the back. by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

feels bad when a photo is favorited, then you look at that person's other favorites and he seems to be kind of a creep

http://vimeo.com/6831560

this was great, I thought

Epson V700 arrived today. Too bad I have two tests Wednesday and finals a week later so I won't get to really set it up for a bit.

i did the rounds of the ilxor ihardlyknowher accounts in ilx's absence, there is a pic of a kfc 'moment' on one that is ~super~

& i have been getting the first rolls back from a couple of weeks of eating through a bunch of different films (i think i checked in pre-crash to lament my spooling clumsiness, i really appreciated the commiserations from y'all), a bunch of which i haven't used before (like, the other kodak 400 speed film that's meant to be a "step up" from tri-x, because it's sharper; i'm kinda dubious but we'll see, in a few weeks). i took this, w/some ektar. & tomorrow i'm picking up some konica 1- or 200 speed film i shot, i think mainly indoors, that i had cross processed and am really worried i'll have jeopardised by doing so - bc the shots were just p straightforward & intimate, and would look best like that, i think, rather than being too trippy (& i have a patchy memory of which slide films it is that are meant to really go crazy when cross-processed; like i think agfa, so maybe i assume konica, too, just because it isn't one i regularly use or know about), so like whether i should have had actual slides made & scanned to preserve their intended chemistry. development angst.

i like that pic, milo, it's nice, it maybe feels a lil more spontaneous than some of your stuff?, i am thinking of the more portraity/set-piece ones (okay i am thinking of the decaying pumpkin). so many photos i take now are shot in the moments while people are distracted, engrossed in a phone or w/e.

aw man that balloon phot is great

I'm sandboxing it too.
the recent (a few weeks ago... don't think I mentioned earlier) snafu for me was neglecting to set the correct shutter speed for a number of flash shots... a whole couple rolls with a dark bottom third of the photo :-(

what are everyone's ihardlyknowher accounts again? I always just clicked through on the old thread.

oh and mine is http://ihardlyknowher.com/altairnouveau duh!

http://ihardlyknowher.com/celluloidpropaganda/big

i like that pic, milo, it's nice, it maybe feels a lil more spontaneous than some of your stuff?

I was thinking today about how most of my favorite photographers are street/documentary-oriented, especially the New York street school. But really, that's not an idiom I can relate to or explore in my own life - street crowds like that don't exist where I'm live, and if I found them it wouldn't really be an honest portrayal of my world. And even if I packed it in and moved to a hovel in Brooklyn, I doubt that it's work I could do honestly at this point - I'm 30. I need to start figuring out how to make the space (and terrible light) of Texas and working-class suburbia my thing again.

good post!

cv i really dig ur photos in ihardlyknowher series format like

I dug these photos:

http://www.thechinabeat.org/?p=3977

mine is http://ihardlyknowher.com/idiotcervantes/big

http://riandundon.com/links.html

dang he has some nice stuff

cv's stuff is so good. it has that kinda thomas struth 'remove' that objectifies everything in the frame; like i think if i took a shot of the people watching the waterfall i would have just taken a tourist shot of the waterfall, cluttered by some people. even the car in the first picture looks good & makes sense & cars are always usually ruining photos like that. the photos look like how things look without looking how they just 'look' (i think dayo mentioned a guy who i wasn't familiar with not so long ago on the photo thread, a contemporary guy who shoots in slightly muted colours i think on medium format, american slightly-distant-portraiture and not-too-distant landscape scenes; kinda like that guy's stuff). (really interested you use flash, btw, cv, is that for street stuff or?)

really like your post!, btw milo. it is funny, i was just back in america for a couple of weeks, and it was a really useful experience in making me think about that whole 'what do you take photographs of' thing, beyond the extent to which that's automatic (cf oh look some colourful balloons). i'm not american & there is a huge temptation to gravitate towards things which already have some kind of schematic context, already come with baggage & which you feel in capturing will successfully reinforce some idea of whatever they are - so obvious stuff like flags, which you see everywhere & which are so obviously overwhelmingly proof of america, a signal. but i feel like this extends to buildings and everything else on the street, too, & i wonder whether doing the take-a-picture-of-a-dumpster thing can be limiting because of this; you take a picture of something that already stands in for and suggests a way of representing a city, "here is its cumbersome, paint-peeling necessity, parked on the street, overwhelming but invisible". & that that's true, def, but whether there is some other more slight or more complicated way of suggesting the city and the street. your post made me think of this eggleston photo, which is one of my v fav photographs just in the world ever, i guess in reference to the idea of street photography, the depiction of crowds and disorder, being less relevant to where you are - like this is perfectly still. i love reading about what you're shooting for, anyway. & most all of my photos now are my friends, local, looking, in terrible light, & they are not going to be for-all-time photographs but i think, i hope, eventually, collaterally, they will say something about having occupied this place around now, i think.

oh & to conclude my pent-up to-do list of things-to-post-to-ILP:

http://www.steidlville.com/books/1224-Chromes.html

man contemporary urban china is just made for high contrast b&w, i think, it's like new york in the 1960s w/kodachrome. disorder is innaresting in this respect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0jzTvqXADE

geez thanks guys! speaking as someone living in a hovel in brooklyn (and approx. 30) though I sometimes wish I were somewhere else. somewhere with an actual horizon and sunlight and interesting shadows etc.
went back out to california (la and sf) recently for a couple of trips and really would have liked to stay longer to take more pictures. sf is still just about my favorite city and la is really photogenic! there's light everywhere, lots of odd shadows and reflections, absurd buildings, and poles, antennas, power lines etc. as far as the eye can see! and horizons!! I'd imagine that texas offers many of the same advantages (at least as far as light and the horizon goes).

the flash work was for (argh!!!!) a friend's wedding! but I was backed up with digital and a second camera. I've tried using a flash in public from time to time, but I'm no Bruce Gilden and the results (with a couple of exceptions) weren't worth it. so I use a flash... when it's dark!

that Eggleston chromes book looks great...

ha, ahh that's interesting. see i still just shoot when it's dark and things don't turn out. i am not sensible that way. it's interesting you took photz at a friend's wedding!, a bunch of friends got married this year & i kinda loved having my camera at both weddings & shooting, but that's so different from being the actual trusted one-shot photographer person who has the burden of capturing everything ON SUCH A SPECIAL DAY (like at one of the weddings i found i had pulled my trademark 'roll did not spool' trick, which i guess would not be well received had i been the main photographer - so yeah a good situation to use digital in).

i think flash is interesting, i have almost never used it, or not when i've been taking ~"photos"~ rather than just snapping with a digi on which i can't figure out how to turn it off. there can be something interesting about it - i know in a bunch of contemporary art a few years ago there was this kinda gloss-print, flash-image aesthetic in a lot of work, picking up on how hyperreal stuff can look, how much you can separate & freeze a figure from a background.

xp yeah doesn't it; i sorta assume it's basically a memphis furniture and fixture inventory c. 1973, only with him taking photos of the tables and stop signs, etc. something pure about it also though.

it is like $10 zillion btw

btw, CV, check this guy, idk if you have seen him, he is one of my favs, i maybe enthused about him on the old thread: http://www.ph0.ch/
the first set (under 'personal') is new and nice. bleachy.

http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad215/jiaoqu/myseagull.jpg

taobao purchase i want to try the high contrast b+w + urban china vibe with this fucking thing

i liked the burma color stuff a bit better

URBAN
CHINA
KX
SEAGULL

on a t-shirt

Those Matthieu Gafsau pictures are nice! I feel like I might have seen some before but I can't be sure.
as far as weddings go, I would normally never in a million years want to volunteer for something like that, but they were friends who claimed they liked the way my pictures looked, as-is, and wanted me to snap away, so I figured they knew what they were getting into. still might have held off except for the fact that they also gave me $$$ for the plane flight plus some extra. I can't afford to take trips otherwise.
other flash strategy = use the point-and-shoot on the "fill" setting (I've got an Olympus stylus for this purpose) and just fire away. looks like the kx seagull might fit the bill for that!

and yes, I see now that the eggleston book is a million dollars and I will never buy it.

If it were $200, I might find a way to swing it, but $320 at Amazon is rough. Biggest photo book regret is not getting Winogrand's 1964 book because it was ~ $120.

hmm, I'll bet that gets reissued eventually.

nb: could crosspost to girl problems thread

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6238/6426535763_f8f4005466_b.jpg
Concert in the Gardens by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

aw :/

meanwhile guys the crossprocessing was a roaring success *throws hand up for hi-5*

:D

(have to admit I saw that as 'hp-5' first)

got some Amazon gift cards for my change jar, went on a book spree:
Vivian Maier: Street Photographer
Alec Soth's America
Magnum Contact Sheets
Bruce Davidson: Subway
the book of Tod Papageorge's essays
used copy of The Photographic Reader (used as a textbook so too expensive new)

only gotten to look at Magnum Contact Sheets so far, but it's a pretty great deal even at $90 - the thing weighs almost nine pounds IIRC.

Great stuff on here already!

In the absence of a WDYLL thread, here's a photo of me taken by my 5yo daughter:
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6095/6379584219_bf2b3e4104_z.jpg

Whoa Michael, you look like you are in the Spooks control room! Awesome!

The Deep Blue cafe in the Science Museum! Lightbox tables...

http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad215/jiaoqu/haiouuuuuuu.jpg

it is mine. the seagull4B. is it true that these are still in production (wikipedia says sooo)?

yeah it's true

Oh wow I forgot how shitty scanning film is.

could crosspost to girl problems thread

If it were possible to fall for a photograph...

Oh wow I forgot how shitty scanning film is.

what time-wise? or quality?
don't knock scanning film, it's one of my favorite pastimes.

yeah, explain yourself

i thought you were all-digi, milo

i just scan prints but find it p enthralling anyway, anything at 400dpi+ is fascinating to me

more slide film fun, btw; both of these relevant to both the fun of cross-processing & the what does it mean aspect of what should you take photos of, wrt america & its brazenly americana-n detritus, ie flags & currency &c

That window reflection is pretty great. Where is that?

Bought a Epson V700 and set it up last night, I'd just forgotten what a PITA handling film for scanning was - flatness, dust control, long scans, etc..
Ultimately worth it, at least for medium-format with the V700, but boy does it make me appreciate digital workflow.

it's grand street, in williamsburg. it is a crop, also, which i never do but did because i wasn't really uploading it as a photo but as part of a kinda diaristic thing that was slightly less rigorous. ty anyhow. the $5 thing is slightly fetishistic i think, but generally ny is so good for like messy-colourful-urban-sprawl photz.
xp

you probably just need to learn to slow your digital heartbeat milo, and commune with the sound and speed of the scanner; to understand that scanning a photograph & posting to ilx in the interim scanner processing period are as one.

i scan all of my stuff on the scratched-up beat-up library scanners because i can't commit to buying a super-cheap unscratched regular scanner because i'm still thinking about, unnecessarily chewing over, the whole buy-a-scanner, scan-yr-bw-negs thing that was discussed here a while back.

oh hey also, ILP sandboxer edition:
it was cool that IHKH took off, but just in case anyone was still looking for the tumblr-themes-of-their-dreams, i saw this a couple of days ago, which looks p suitable, size-wise etc

http://howblanktheme.tumblr.com/

Agreed on that. This is my latest:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7171/6434132729_2c74d7299f_z.jpg

re: scanning I don't even really have any control of image flatness w my machine. it's generally not bad but sometimes you can see a little curvature in straight lines. nothing worse than you might get from many lenses anyway though. dust on the other hand... the eternal struggle.

my workflow is slow too! but methodical and I enjoy it. 1.) get back (uncut negatives) 2.) cut into sections of 6 each 3.) scan frame by frame and adjust color sliders manually (no clipped anything if I can help it) and 4.) slip into negative sleeves, and label to match the folder the files are in. I don't do any auto dust removal unless I'm certain its a shot I want and it really needs it. either no sharpening or the lowest amount of sharpening. usually no negative color cast removal. all folders/sleeves say something like 0290-2011-XA2 Fuji Superia 400 so in theory I can easily find anything that needs a rescan down the road.

now what part of that hours-long process doesn't sound like a barrel of fun???

xpost

agreed on that = "ny is so good for like messy-colourful-urban-sprawl photz"

ha yeah, that sentence was only orphaned until I saw the pic - yr stuff really is so great. I think it's the relationships between people that make me always say Jeff Wall:

http://images.prophotos.ru/45/28/45282400d92357bb684da0e4991fd2fd_article_660_2008050717.jpg
http://www.chimpomatic.com/file-uploads/large/jeff-wall-bird.jpg

I love the broad church that is ILP, in terms of the varying methodologies of everyone involved; I can't totally follow the various steps of your scan/clean-up process - like idk what image flatness even is - but it's interesting. when you're playing with the colours, is that to match by eye to a print you've seen, or according to what you think they should be, or ?

yeah love Jeff Wall.
image flatness is just actually literally getting the negative to be flat, rather than bowing or curving etc. I think some scanners sandwich it between glass, and drum scanners seal it with water maybe? but mine just holds the edges so if it's a fresh roll and very curved, it'll show a bit. can be flattened eventually though if I roll it in the opposite direction for a while.

the colors are half "what seems correct based on what I remember" and half "what looks nice." like I'll broadly try to move sliders until it looks "right" but will then move them a little more. in real life I never see cyan tinted shadows, but because its something that film does that can look appealing I'll maybe bring it out a bit on some shots. or warm the photo with yellow in the shadows, sharpen it with magenta, etc. that kinda thing.

I haven't gotten prints in ages, by the way, and when going through old photos back home in San Jose recently was reminded how nice even quick prints from a point-and-shoot could once look. got some new ones for a roll a week or so ago and the magic is gone! I think a lot of labs do digital prints now, even from negatives, and they automatically bump up contrast and do weird things with the color balance. didn't look good at all.

I need to get in the habit of making contact sheets of all my negatives ($.39 8x10s at Walgreen's!), my old negative binders have lost most of the contact sheets and there's no organization to them at all. Thankfully it's mostly B&W and I can still 'read' negatives without a contact pretty well. Color neg, not so much.

It looks to me like 12x12 or even 15x15 prints from medium-format are doable from the V700 (or the equivalent in 6x7/6x9), which makes me happy. 35mm scanning isn't going as well, but I can't tell yet if I was just feeding it less-than-sharp negatives.

My Flickr views have gone way up since I started putting up more photos of my roommate (that's her in the last picture) and my friend Erin (first photo in the thread). Shocking.

yeah i think flickr is pretty gross like that

kinda grosser that they're not even 'sexy' shots

i totally co-sign this ^^^ & think flickr is the ultimate lol for getting 10 drooly photographer guys saying WONDERFUL LIGHTING, REALLY INTERESTING ANGLE at some emo nude shot, BUT, i do think there is some room to allow for it being like a general human response to another human subject, more than always being just a terrible, base urge. there are photos which are photos of people that are appealing for those people; either them existing, or gesturally, or whatever, & i think the tangling of "i am looking at a photo" & "i am looking at a human", to whom we might have a variety of responses (based on attractiveness or aesthetics or w/e), is pretty difficult to divorce. i just found an old flickr account i had for some digi-snacks a couple of years ago & it has photos i've favourited, & a bunch of them are these kinda radiant or colourful pictures that have a guy or a girl in. we are pretty drawn to that sorta thing & i wouldn't have to answer for my gravitation to them in some ways. so seeing the views go up, i can feel that there's obviously a WELL SEX SELLS response to it but i also think that wondering whether the views would be the same, say if the subject were interchanged, is a hard comparison to make.

maybe this is getting sorta pop your top off love i have an idea

i wouldn't want to have to answer for my gravitation to them, rather

it's like i was looking of that picture of giacometti's face. it is a pretty good face.

yeah i mean i like photos of hot guys

Everyone still <3 photography here? Before this thread drops off the bottom of the page I figure I'll revive it in the classic fashion, by posting another picture yet again:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7171/6579139295_d02642ba0c_z.jpg

After a "fertile period" I'm running out of negs to scan though. It is now grey and cold and not as fun to take pictures, though I'll continue giving it a shot when the sun shows its face.

PS is anyone ever able to pick up Fuji Superia 400 in 36 exp rolls? Seems they've been discontinued. Yet another sign of impending doom. Love those film cameras while you still can.

Everyone still <3 photography here?

ha, i had the same thought yesterday & wondered if this previously out-of-control-freight-train of a thread had run out of steam.

i think i occasionally get on top of photos i have to scan, & feel like they're p much done, but i still usually have twenty rolls of undeveloped film in a bag, so they're there for when i have the money to get prints. also i just got a scanner!, an old hand-me down that will diminish the amount of time i spend using the cuff of my sleeve to buff scratches on the library scanners. i'm mainly getting b&w stuff printed, recently, with a two week wait, but i like knowing i have so much old stuff (it's usually like a 12 month backlogue, interrupted by occasionally getting stuff developed after i've shot it).

i also spent a couple of days at my folks' place over the holidays scanning some old photos i took like five years ago in rome, on ilford delta 3200, which i tend to reflexively duck away from now - like it was a hallmark of my earlier attempts at boldness - but which holds up really well, & is more generous w/midtones etc than i remember (here's a couple).

like your photo a lot, the guy's modestly lilac ensemble is nice. that's w/flash, right?

i am p sure i can still get superia 400 (am in the uk), i'm not crazy about it though. you oughtta stockpile :/

God I can't even imagine that kind of backlog anymore. It is really kind of nice though, knowing that there's just a lot of stuff you've shot that's waiting to be seen. When I was broke for awhile I just didn't develop anything, and it was a lot of fun catching up at first. Until I started to recognize that I was catching up with my "lazy period" and then I couldn't get through it fast enough.
Yeah that photo's with a flash, and I just realized it's a little odd to have put that up while complaining about the weather and lack of light outside.
Those shots from Rome look great. And you're not kidding about the decent mids. Love the second one especially!
I can get Superia 400 in 24 rolls still, but it's not as $$ efficient. Didn't used to like it, but now that I'm home scanning I can get it to look nice. And it's got finer grain than the cheap kodak stuff. And stockpiling is right. I think Fuji is quietly discontinuing stuff left and right. I bet they get out of film sooner rather than later.

Ha, I have the same tie as the old guy in that photo, pretty sure.

I have not taken a photo in days. Had almost three weeks of intermittent rain that was just a beatdown.

The Fort Worth stock show is coming up in January, I think I'm going to try to make several trips to that to see what I can get.

God I can't even imagine that kind of backlog anymore. It is really kind of nice though, knowing that there's just a lot of stuff you've shot that's waiting to be seen.

yes. for sure. i mean i forget what's on there (i only started even labeling film w/time periods a while back), so there's this weird gulf between taking and getting, which is generally v true of (film) photography anyway. i think having had a few unspooled roll disasters recently (they're piling up, but i'm going to just start really being thorough, now, & accepting 36 shots a roll instead of a plucky but risky 39; i am outsourcing some of the blame for this on OM-1s, though probably carry more myself) has forced me into accepting a weird serendipity about what i even manage to catch; i'm sad when things don't appear, or if i've shot ten photos inside on a day when i was using 100 speed film & all i got was muted shapes, but maybe buffering the time between shooting & seeing relaxes me about a specific shot having been lost to time. i def think one of the more profound things about photography is the time capsule element, so i almost think you improve 'lazy period' photos by seeing them six months after the fact.

here is another rome pic, it's so funny looking at these because i don't really take anything on this scale anymore, but it's just almost gratuitously easy to get something in somewhere so picturesque, just collaterally, it's like if you take a picture of grass & are satisfied that your camera bothered to render each blade.

i just hit up my exposed film place & they hardly had anything - i bought a single role of konica slide film, which is fun at least (idk if i posted thanksgiving-porn.jpg from a couple of weeks back). so i went around the corner & bought some weird fuji colour 160 pro film to tide me over for awhile. i might try an expired ebay lot.

i would love a photo-geek response re: why all expired film all seems to reside in israel btw, ebay search is throwing up mysteries

my skills are pretty amateur compared to you folks, i have a panasonic lumix, a holga, and an old canon 35mm, and i don't photograph nearly enough i'm afraid.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7165/6595276693_64152bb01e_b.jpg

ha that's nice!, i am amateur as fuck, represent.
what did you take it with? i was saying before about avoiding & then embracing midtones, i think i like more blacks in a b&w photo but it's a nice shot.
i think photographing enough is just taking your camera w/you when you leave the house

yeah i have a few rolls that i should get developed.

this one was taken w/my panasonic lumix (model # escapes me.) i prefer it mostly for B&W, the color is nice for random family gathering pics but not spectacular.

I like that son

i'm trying to develop my tech abilities a little more, which is tough since i've never been particularly tech-savvy. always been fine w/composition, which occasionally makes up for it.

I like that son

using the 'amateur' thing to play the pro huh

re: spooling disasters etc., I now have a fair number of, say, misloaded rolls, or rolls where I set the flash sync speed wrong, shots that were just way off (focus, etc.) and these things all used to just KILL ME, but by now it's not really much sweat. Having thought I shot a roll on a trip some months back only to realize the camera was empty, it just kind of didn't even matter much to me anymore. If the film isn't loaded, or I ruin a roll somehow (oh yeah, also through disastrous processing at some local shops a while back!) it's almost like no big deal. I never saw the thing anyway so I've got nothing to miss. If a beloved negative went missing or something though that would be different. I guess I figure all of my shots might as well be disasters until I actually get them scanned.
Plus I get really used to discovering that all of the OMG CAN'T BELIEVE I GOT THAT AMAZING SHOT pictures are generally nothing to write home about, with some exceptions.

PS NICE MIDS!!

thx riv and schlump~

using the 'amateur' thing to play the pro huh

― Never translate German (schlump), Thursday, December 29, 2011 12:21 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

ha, i deliberately didn't put a comma in there to avoid this

yeah i think its best to just take photos and then wait a while so you forget all the ones you're crossing your fingers for.

I 'finished' that eggleston book - some interesting stuff in the interviews & articles towards the back

-wish I didn't know that it was curated by michael almyreda or w/e his name is - doesn't 'feel' like an eggleston book or at the very least has a different character to it. a lot more 'people' shots, and I think that was intentional, to distance itself from the other egglestone books out
-eggleston majored in painting in college & still paints (hey him and HCB). apparently knows a bit about color theory, probably more than he lets on
-sometimes he shoots the same thing more than once

good book though, I'll have to return to it

yes. p much. there are exceptions. i remember meeting jim jarmusch when i was young & a young man & living in new york & shooting a couple of pics of him & someone taking pics of me talking to him (i wrote my dissertation on him so it seemed like this weird quintessential moment) & them just never printing, i couldn't even work out (because of my backlogue-disorganisation) which roll they'd been on, my olympus would sometimes jar on 24 & shred the rest of a roll. & that was sad. but it just sorta isn't the same thing. i wrote down an index from memory of one of the recent rolls i lost & that exists even if the film doesn't, it's just different. & to go an extra philosophical mile, anything i shoot after a mis-fired role wouldn't exist had i spooled that one correct, everything would be different, so you deal with what you've got. people are always like WELL GUESS IT'S TIME TO GO DIGITAL when i lament some classically-analogue failure but its limits & risks are cool with me, it's just a different thing to the documentation i'd be pulling with digital.

OMG CAN'T BELIEVE I GOT THAT AMAZING SHOT

ha, yes.

looked through yr recent flickr stuff CV, real good, these guys-w-ties are so good, they're a series in themselves.

ha, i deliberately didn't put a comma in there to avoid this

― river wolf, Thursday, December 29, 2011 6:27 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink

i still jumped all over you on it, it happened. have you been shooting, btw, i only worked out your sandbox disguise identity a couple of days ago & wondered.

-sometimes he shoots the same thing more than once

sitting here tearing pages out of william eggleston's guide right now

I specifically chose to go to a digital showing of mission impossible 4 today instead of a film one

*impales self*

gah no, i haven't :(

i mean, i've got a few rolls from the m6 that need developing, but i haven't really been anywhere or doing anything that i thought merited documentation. need to be better about a) bringing the cam with all the time b) being more fearless about whipping it out (!!) and c) getting that shit developed in a timely fashion

hah I just developed 5 rolls yesterday from the summer that I had forgotten about

still would love developing stuff (almost asked for that for xmas) and a scanner

I have three rolls of medium-format film and a roll of Tri-X on my desk that have been waiting for me to build up enough film to send off for development.

I actually think backlog is good - the Instagram/Flickr/etc. 'need to post something on the reg' is not necessarily the best. I mean, you wouldn't mail a curator or gallerist one print at a time as you did something, you'd amass a body of work and display it. Better not to die with thousands of undeveloped rolls (ala Winogrand or Vivian Maier), but some space between what you did and what you're seeing on the light table/in prints is not a bad thing.

Discovered an A+++++ meter app for the iPhone - Fotometer Pro.

Works like an old Sekonic, essentially, uses the forward facing camera for incident readings if you want to. Much better than the other light meter apps I've tried

I am totally envious of everyone's backlog on here. I got way too caught up and now am not in a shooting mood :(

I just wish I had a billion unscanned rolls for the cold winter.

And I hate the pressure to always be putting pictures online but I am in THRALL TO THE THRILL. It's about time to dip into the boring stuff.

still would love developing stuff (almost asked for that for xmas) and a scanner

― river wolf, Thursday, December 29, 2011 6:40 PM (34 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink

yes, psyched about getting a secondhand scanner but dayo's do-it-yrself instructions are still a kinda carrot on a string i'm thinking of pursuing, maybe next time i'm feeling settled somewhere

And I hate the pressure to always be putting pictures online but I am in THRALL TO THE THRILL.

yeah this is fun. adventures in curating.

http://www.ministryoftofu.com/2011/12/photos-how-much-time-does-the-reality-leave-to-a-dream/

so this is crude and blunt and manipulative but it punches me in all the right places and now I want to cry

http://bremser.tumblr.com/post/14980111410/my-own-favorite-photos-of-2011

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8McHbjaxpbA

Has anyone seen this? It looks great (You gotta love Joel Sternfeld's hair!)

I'd love to see that. Of course it's also got me wanting to pony up for some Steidl books.

lol I've heard about that. the photographer lives in a little hut for like 3 months while they go through the proofing process.

the steidl books I have are, well, magnificient

please can we have I Love Photography: fuck the midtones

lol I was just thinking that would be an excellent motto

jeff wall! was trying to remember his name along w/ gregory crewdson and philip-lorca dicorcia

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7160/6602205383_f3dbf49d0b_z.jpg
Untitled by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

amazon increased the price of neopan 400 from $3 to $6

:(

There were rumors it was getting discontinued, but I dunno what's up with that. Maybe Fuji let production lapse to make price increases more palatable.

I ordered 25 rolls from Midwest Photo Exchange for cheap and they were supposed to be recently expired. But they ran out of the expired stuff before shipping mine, took a month to get more, etc., so I got a steal on film that's still good 'til late 2013.

I need to buy film again

yeah B&W film stores forever, if frozen

can I just

http://i.imgur.com/QtXfu.jpg

<3

I think dumb fashion collaborations have reached a new low:
http://www.rubyhornet.com/carhartt-x-powershovelqblackbird-fly-camera/