yes im a cheater. ;)


I use illford for B&W and AGFA for color.

here are some more i took, humboldt county
http://s94673206.onlinehome.us/nluer...mboldtfour.jpg

on my way to chico
http://s94673206.onlinehome.us/nluer.../chicofour.jpg

here's my little page with all my photo's http://a-snell.deviantart.com check it out and give me some critisim?(sp?)

The most recent stuff is from the summer. i haven't had a chance to scan anything since then but hopefully soon

photography sucks. get over it.

http://www.kylekelleyphoto.com

man, i used to love photography and working in the darkroom--black and white in particular...i have more of an eye for contrast, patterns, textures and those sorts of things than for color.

sadly, my camera lay dormant for a couple of months, and when i found myself out of food with a week until payday, rather than go and busk and buy some ramen or try to figure out something else, i pawned my camera since i "wasn't using it anyway".

i regret it to this day. i always see such nice shots right in front of me that i can't take anymore. stupid me.

I think everyone should switch to digital. It's easier and much more secure as far as archiving your work and keeping it safe for years. You can get GIMP for free to edit all your photos. If you really get into it you can buy a really, really nice printer and a b/w ink set and everyone will think you're printing film photos on fiber paper. You don't have to worry about only being able to shoot 24 or 36 exposure before changing film. Etc. And then when you have your badass digital photo setup complete, you can sell me all your darkroom equipment for cheap. :)

I used to shoot pretty much only color because that's all I knew how to handle in the darkroom. Did some color slides. Then kind of stopped shooting for many years. 2 years ago my wife bought me a nice digital SLR (Canon 10D) and now I'm only shooting in color. In many ways still prefer B&W though. Depends on what I'm trying to shoot I guess.

Digital is great. Cheap too, once you have the setup.

edit: oops. I meant used to shoot B&W

I agree that you have a wider range of controls available to do work in shorter amounts of time in Photoshop, but I have to nitpick on one thing. A properly exposed and processed B&W negative still has a much greater dynamic range than a digital sensor does. I'm talking 14-15 stops. If you know your scanning, you can pull all of that out of the negative and use it, too. A digital sensor has a comparatively compressed lattitude in terms of raw information. This is why I use and love a mixed workflow - initial exposure on film, everything after development on the comp.

I absolutely suck at photography....which is why I am selling my EOS-1 35mm...*cough cough pm me cough cough*

I shot those with a sony DCS F-828 which I need to sell.. i'm currently rocking a Fuji S3 Pro Digital SLR. Kinda got in trouble with the law for taking a picture of a powerplant and i've been on a photography hiatus :(

Ah men on the increased dynamic range of film.

I definetely think it's whatever floats your boat and if you are happy with your final product, that's the thing to use. People who are shooting for the web are going to have different needs than people who want to do large prints vs. people who just want 5 x7's right away.

Every technology has it's own look. I saw some large format (4 x5) work this weekend at the Brooklyn Musem (Manufactured Landscapes) that was pretty insane. Color large format, mostly digitally printed.

It's actually a really good time to be a photographer. You can pick up the greatest film cameras on Ebay for pretty cheap and get a decent scanner for less than $500 or a new digital SLR for about the same combined price and persue your artistic vision at home or even find an increasingly rare darkroom.

Nice thread.