Oh well. Suck my digital balls, Neil!Originally Posted by nb
No, just a bitch.Originally Posted by drew_amato
Jonathon, I like a bunch of those. Do you use flickr? Trying to fav a couple of those.
5 years? Maybe, MAYBE 50. Film isn't going anywhere soon. Kodak just brought back films they discontinued years ago because they saw that there is a market for them.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29764897@N05/Originally Posted by Timothy James Kelly
That's my photostream. This was my 4th roll of film I ever did. My other rolls are in there too, along with some shitty Polaroids and some shitty digital stuff.
for some reason i expected these to be awful but they're mostly pretty good.
Im not a fan of the sparkler pics just because it's a little cliche and kinda boring but i can understand the interest in it.
I wanted to hate on the back farv photo for the head crop and skater being out of focus but i really like the lighting and the kids in the background. It actually became one of my faves along with the kite pictures.
Thank you so much man. That means a ton!Originally Posted by Lukash
I actually wanted to crop out Gavin more in that farv photo. in my view finder he was cropped out more. I wanted the focus to be on the lighting, and the kids, and it was just an experiment. All of the photos are really. I had nothing to expect.
Wanna get grey card tats or golden ratio tats?Originally Posted by drew_amato
i like these pictures more than the majority of the self proclaimed photographers photographs. rockin
Just googled "film tattoo" and came up with some pretty faggy photos.
The second photo was on her flicker, she has over 1000 photos of herself... all digital. A ton of albums, 3 "365 days" albums that just include a photo of her infront of her computer....
Look at this. A photo of her shirt lifted up to see how thin she is and her description says
tomorrow we go to the animal dermatologist.
have turned into a red, swollen lower lip.
some sort of allergy or skin infection?
using at least 1/2 of my last paycheck to take care of my animal.
.... I think I'll pass on branding myself a "fag"
Originally Posted by drew_amato
1.1a) I was anticipating certain Be-maggers saying school is for losers. That you'd waste your money when you could learn all that stuff on your own.Originally Posted by jonathan
1.1b) Structure is lacking from rollerblading and photography from the artistic aspect. That is what attracts us to it.
2.1a) I'm sure it's different everywhere. I paid around 1,000 for a university class when I could have taken a CC class for around $200. I had to buy my own chemicals and whatnot too which my local community college doesn't make you do so.
3.1a) I meant the stock was film rather than...not film? I just meant the medium was film rather than digital.
Remember: "It is better to keep your [hands still] and appear stupid than to [respond] and remove all doubt."
Originally Posted by Alex Coe
Oh I thought stock was a generic style of film to buy.
Yeah $200 for CC would be AMAZING. I mean I do enjoy it, I feel like I spent enough time playing around with it. Maybe going to school will really sharpen me up. However, my major is video.... Maybe I should see if they have both. Because I look at Brazil's shit, and am impressed. That kid had to have formal training (with the exception of all of us learning on our own, the techniques he is using is definitely shit he studied)
I would like to take a film class, I'll look around my area to see if they still offer it, if not, I could just apply the digital shit to my film shit.
Film will never die 100%, your average consumer now owns a digital P&S and your standard pro owns a D-SLR or something with a digital back. Aside from a select few, film is for hobbyists. I think a fair shout of ad photographers shoot on like 120.
It's just a shame for genuine film heads that their specialist area is being butchered by Urban Outfitters.