Hilarious.

Okay. This is pretty funny.

Actually, there are a couple things that are funny. Especially the story about the hooker and the kid on drugs.

Here’s the link. BLOG.

Pretty in pink.

Or rather, barely visible in pink light.

I took this picture last night. Coulda (and shoulda) been with the Rollei. Only about a week until I get the exchange.

Meanwhile, some digital diversion.

Well, they’re not that crazy (part 2).

So, there was one more picture from my trip to Venice Beach that I didn’t upload. I had some reservations on which picture I should post. There were a couple that turned out okay, nothing too spectacular. Ended up “re-liking” this photo — why not post it?

Lately, I’ve been wondering some of the requirements for a good photo. When I first using my camera, I was a member of the “no edit” photo club. It was probably a result of the things I was photographing. Everything was related to sports. Here’s an example: Emma Snowsill. I took the only bike picture in the “China” section. Even though it’s not in China. I think the webmaster got a little confused with all the pictures he had to document. Oh well.

Anyway, back to my point. Nobody wants an overly edited sports photo for their website. Conversely, I don’t want to put mundane prints on my wall. There’s a site that really convinced me that editing is fun — Kappii Photography. That website, mixed with my admiration of impressionist paintings (specifically Monet), has helped me appreciate post processing. Anyone can snap a picture, finding art in most things is more difficult.

Now, requirements for a good photo? I have only really thought of one (so far): separating the photographer from the subject. When you look at a picture, do you immediately imagine someone behind the lens, taking the shot? Or are you drawn to what is in the frame, focused on what the photographer wants you to see?

Well, here’s the shot:

Updates.

Attached pictures are larger.

The about section now includes a picture. There is also an email contact. Both links are located to the right, under “A Film Blog.”

Out with the crazies (part 1).

Finally, I was able to take the Rollei out for a test shoot. I took a light meter with me (since the one my camera came with had been long dead). Funny thing, though. I purchased the camera, so I could have some more flexibility/control than I had with the Holga. I shot everything at 1/125 f8 or 1/250 f8. I could have gotten the same exposures(ish) with my Holga!

The camera performed well. Until the end. Turns out the rewind mech broke some of my film. The lens also decided to stop retracting. I did purchase the Rollei from a camera shop that specializes in used gear, so they are used to this sort of thing. I’m shipping it back tomorrow and exchanging it for a clone (this time it comes in straight black).

Here are a few shots — I’ll post more in a couple days. I’m starting to enjoy the look of film.

By the way, all focus is guessed, based on perceived distance (nothing auto). Exposure is pretty much a guess as well (except for the initial readings from the light meter).

A New Old Camera.

Take a look at the new camera.

About me.

Check out the about section. It’s a short 24 year summary (well, 5… minus the 19 years pre-photo).

Click this link to view. About.