Exam period was done one week ago, and I spend most of the last one away from the internet or any other evil. Photos have been taken and edited, and so I am back to my challenge. I am experimenting with styles, as you can see. I am working to become a photo universalis. I am looking forward to another challenge, and night time London definitely sounds like an excellent one.
My film camera is unfortunately broken, and, moreover, 2000 kilometers away from me. I have been reunited with my 50mm lens in the meantime, and I have also worked with some shitmentallyamazingwhichisnotthatamazingbutstillamazingforme new ones. The opportunity made me focus and do my best. I can't say this week's London shots are my biggest babes, but they're nice. And they didn't need even half the post processing I thought they needed.
I miss film.
Since I started 365 I just shot digital, but I have developed some
shit film photos and I was overrun by nostalgia. I'm thinking of just grabbing a $100 zenith from somewhere and give it a shot.
To be honest, I love my camera, but my recent photowalks sometimes made me feel like my hands are tied. On one hand, I cannot deny how awesome my camera is. But on the other hand, my camera is just a D90. I believe it's not about quality, it's about possibilities. But sometimes I'd love my ISO 3200 without VGA quality.
My question is, what is you natural workflow in photography? What makes a good photo? Is post-processing a good or a bad thing? Is Photoshop the strongest weapon to master or is it just a drug?
And, moreover, is Photoshop tied to digital?
Is both film and digital just a support, a medium on which to shoot the highest-quality possible imagery so that you can manipulate/improve/work on it digitally afterwards? Is film just better a resolution sensor to be scanned, or is it more?
Question is, is film alive?</sub></sub>
Listening to: Fuzzy Duck
Reading: Two Cows and a Vanful of Smoke
Drinking: enormous quantities of coffee still