I have to start using my film camera.
Watching people take stellar pictures (it started with dasro, but ended with an awesome side view from the roof of MCS in
I have gigs of photos i’ve taken with the little travel digital. Positive points – I can take it with me anywhere and not worry about it, it already sucks. Also, I can take as many pictures as I want. Also, no cost for developing. Negative points – crappy options, TOTAL DEPTH OF FIELD (grr), and I can take as many pictures as I want – so I don’t expend as much effort on each individual picture. Also, HUGE FUCKING BLUR RIGHT IN THE CENTER OF THE PICTURE. I weep every time I look at them. Okay… inside.
Bleh. Along with the graphic design portfolio, the web design portfolio, and the video editing portfolio, I need to sit down with myself, come up with some potentially interesting work, and get some peeps to do some modelling.
The last part is the easiest.
When I went looking through my print photos for my skydiving set, I was stunned all over again with the massive amount of photography I’ve done since I was 20. It would take an entire day to look through everything, if I was indiscriminately browsing and didn’t stop to examine them. The idea of putting them all into binders is enough to make me laugh until I’m sick. As it is, I can barely carry the giant drawer by myself.
Want to scan when I have (hah!) free time – Hot Tub photo for Adrienne’s birthday. Multiple Diana-at-Mt-Vernon pictures, mostly ’cause I think she should make them into icons. More MCS pictures. “Old School” Lansing Crew.
A) Get the digital camera fixed; you can probably get the part and do it yourself, even.
B) Ditch the film.
While it’s true that with the same camera body, film is still better than digital, it’s only a little better. With film, you lose so much in time, expense, control (unless you develop them yourself), and flexibility. Better to get a great digital camera. If you have a film SLR with lenses, you may even be able to get a digital SLR that can use the same lenses. Digital cameras may sound like a big expense initially, but you’ll rapidly make that up in film and processing, especially if you’re going to take lots of pictures.
BTW, Consumer Reports reviewed digital SLR’s in this month’s issue.
Links to archived versions of CR’s report:
Overview
Performance
Ratings
Recommendations
Actually, yes. :) I know, and certainly understand that the price rapidly decreases depending on how prolific you are with a camera. The problem, for me, is a distinct shortfall of disposable income. Partly, that is because I have too many social eating engagements, and partly, I am underpaid because I accepted my job pre-degree in order to have a flexible schedule.
I’m working on it, but a D-cam isn’t in my immediate future. I looked at digital backings, but they’re nearly as expensive as an entirely new camera.
As for the digital, I have once taken apart a camera lense, and it was, literally, impossible to put back together. Fortunately, the lens was going to be thrown out, anyway. The question is, how much cost can one put in to a $120 camera that isn’t worth nearly as much now?
I’ve seen your camera; I don’t think you’re in for a whole lens disassembly. If you like the camera and can’t replace it with a better one for the cost of the part, you’re well served to at least try to repair it. Since you can’t afford to replace it outright, it has huge value to you in delaying your need for a new one.
Oh, and ultimately, even for film, I often scan, modify and reprint, unless I’m developing and/or printing myself. For instance, for the wedding photos I’ll be getting my negs scanned at high res, modifying them as desired, and providing a cd or dvd for the lovely couple to choose their own reprinting.
Course, these are some of my favorite people, so I’m doing it for free.
I miss this pic as your default
I need a new picture of me. Maybe one of me with my glasses. Maybe at the Train Station. I dunno.
Yes.
…Maybe one where you aren’t posing ;)