I started shooting more with my old Nikkormat FTn lately because of peer pressure from my film friends. It's a hobby, I don't plan on getting too deep in, like my friend who's a professional wedding photographer who only shoots film. I shoot on whatever 35mm I can get from the drug store. Critique my tourist photos!
I started shooting more with my old Nikkormat FTn lately because of peer pressure from my film friends. It's a hobby, I don't plan on getting too deep in, like my friend who's a professional wedding photographer who only shoots film. I shoot on whatever 35mm I can get from the drug store. Critique my tourist photos!
That is some MAX level ridiculousness. Not only would it cost more, be more of a hassle to shoot, but I'm betting it significantly increases processing time. Maybe their lab scans and removes dust etc for them? Also, unless they are wasting some rapid fire frames I'm betting they are missing some moments. The wedding photographers I know will have both the first and second shooter go full auto for the first kiss just hoping to get one usable frame. I guess if their customers are happy then whatever. o_O
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
While I agree that it seems kinda ridiculous with how good digital has gotten, there were wedding photographers before digital was a thing.
Yes but they weren't competing with a more efficient method. With VSCO and other such packages it is arguable that the end product is going to be nigh indistinguishable between digital and film when going for a vintage look.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
+2
NappuccinoSurveyor of Things and StuffRegistered Userregular
The wedding photographers I know will have both the first and second shooter go full auto for the first kiss just hoping to get one usable frame.
sure, but the five other guests at the reception with dslrs (not to mention the rest, all with point and shoots and iphones held aloft) will be on "full auto" also. that moment is captured anyway.
in such a saturated market (not just wedding photos, but images in general these days) the product sells if it's differentiated enough to be impressive. perhaps they've been able to achieve that through film. it's certainly not unfeasible as a professional process though.
Weddings really aren't that big a deal for film. The vast majority of photos taken at a wedding are poses with various levels of family members. Then you have the usual wedding moments which are predictable enough to catch. Sprinkle in some artsy shots of flowers, the bride getting ready and whatnot and you're set.
I think digital has trained a lot of people to "spray and pray" because it's convenient, rather than better.
The wedding photographers I know will have both the first and second shooter go full auto for the first kiss just hoping to get one usable frame.
sure, but the five other guests at the reception with dslrs (not to mention the rest, all with point and shoots and iphones held aloft) will be on "full auto" also. that moment is captured anyway.
in such a saturated market (not just wedding photos, but images in general these days) the product sells if it's differentiated enough to be impressive. perhaps they've been able to achieve that through film. it's certainly not unfeasible as a professional process though.
Yeah, I'm not saying it is impossible it is harder than the current conventional method. If you are paying someone $2+k to shoot a wedding you shouldn't have to rely on your friends and family with their phones/dslrs (which half of them probably can't operate effectively) to capture important moments in the wedding.
Its not one big thing but a lot of little things. You change the ISO on a whim, you don't have to wait/reload film, better low light focusing, better metering, less processing costs, chimping for non-settings related problems like person with their eyes closed, ability to update/reprocess photos down the line if a photo style goes out of vogue, etc.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Also gotta plug Photovision. They get their scans to you fast once they receive them. They use a Fuji Frontier SP3000 scanner and do a little bit of correction more if you ask for it push/pull. If you shoot film and aren't happy with how your negative scans are coming out, I highly recommend sending them to http://www.photovisionprints.com/
yeeehaw! My friends organize instameets every so often. It's how I met AJ. Folks bring their cameras and we just shoot in different locations. Last one was in Spring Hill. One before that was Downtown Nashville. PM me if you want info.
That is some MAX level ridiculousness. Not only would it cost more, be more of a hassle to shoot, but I'm betting it significantly increases processing time. Maybe their lab scans and removes dust etc for them? Also, unless they are wasting some rapid fire frames I'm betting they are missing some moments. The wedding photographers I know will have both the first and second shooter go full auto for the first kiss just hoping to get one usable frame. I guess if their customers are happy then whatever. o_O
AJ's workflow: Send rolls to Photovision. Scans delivered to dropbox pretty much hours after they get it because he's one of their biggest clients. He delivers the selects to client, no edits because he metered and knew what he wanted to achieve when he took the shot.
How long is it going to take to edit all those dslr shots? Especially the full auto ones. Most wedding photographers take weeks, especially when juggling multiple jobs. So with film AJ actually saves time.
I always preferred the result of film and the beauty of film over the convenience of digital. It's well worth the cost and you have more latitude to determine a distinct look in camera, making decisions of what stock to use, what to meter for, etc.
That's not really an excuse for not doing any sort of post-processing. I mean, good on him for knowing what and how to meter, but post wasn't invented as a way of getting around how shitty DSLRs are.
I don't know, kudos to your friend for having a successful business he's obviously very good at, but the attitude in your post rubs me the wrong way.
That's not really an excuse for not doing any sort of post-processing. I mean, good on him for knowing what and how to meter, but post wasn't invented as a way of getting around how shitty DSLRs are.
I don't know, kudos to your friend for having a successful business he's obviously very good at, but the attitude in your post rubs me the wrong way.
Well as far as latitude in the shadows and highlights, film has a severe edge. That's why when shooting digital video I aim for a flatter image so that there is actual data to correct in post. Whereas when I've shot film, I've aimed for a specific look as much in camera as possible to reduce the length of the color timing and also because the film stock could maintain the detail in the extreme whites and blacks.
I know in photography it isn't necessarily one to one, but I do aim for a flatter exposure in raw stills. I am increasingly amazed by how much detail I can get out of them in post, but it's because I shot for flat. I know if it was just negative white space, there would be no information to manipulate, whereas in film, there almost always is information and beauty and detail in the whites and blacks.
It's well worth the cost and you have more latitude to determine a distinct look in camera, making decisions of what stock to use, what to meter for, etc.
Whats the advantage of determining the look in camera as opposed to doling it afterwards? Not that with film you determine the look of the product with the negatives.
Negatives are a starting point.
How long is it going to take to edit all those dslr shots? Especially the full auto ones. Most wedding photographers take weeks, especially when juggling multiple jobs. So with film AJ actually saves time.
I always preferred the result of film and the beauty of film over the convenience of digital. It's well worth the cost and you have more latitude to determine a distinct look in camera, making decisions of what stock to use, what to meter for, etc.
yeah, i also find, for whatever reason, i spend a lot less time processing analogue shots than i do digital. well, maybe not if you include the development itself, but that's different... cathartic? because film itself has elements of character, it's easier to trust that - or at least embrace it - and leave additional alterations to broad strokes. i also think dedicated photo scanning equipment and software really leverages the depth of a negative to get the most dynamic image at the point of scanning. very different to a RAW file. which is kind of why if i'm shooting on my X100 i'm usually happy to use jpeg and a tweaked film simulation mode.
developed a roll more of colour from the rangefinder. it's not real sharp at infinity, it seems. but it's little and looks like a toy so it's fun to carry around. i couldn't be stuffed doing the whole flickr thing tonight but here's a sneak peak - contact sheet!
might tone down the contrast a bit before i publish any of these ones
Whats the advantage of determining the look in camera as opposed to doling it afterwards? Not that with film you determine the look of the product with the negatives.
Negatives are a starting point.
I think the point I'm making is that film is higher fidelity than digital. I enjoy post processing on film, but the fact is that film provides a greater deal of latitude and beauty and information that digital just hasn't been able to replicate. The fact that post has become a norm in a DSLR workflow is just indicative of this. A great deal of the craft of film photography before software was a part of the artistic process was choosing a stock, exposing for what you want done in the lab, whether push/pull, etc., all done in camera. Then when software became involved we used that tool to further our art.
My statement is not saying post is bad. I'm just expressing the advantages of shooting film. When I shoot with a DSLR I shoot flat because I trust raw will maintain a good amount of information that I can manipulate later. But I know if I let it blow out, or have extreme shadows, I will end up with negative black or white areas where no information is recorded. Sometimes it's a stylistic decision, but most times it is just ugly. So post isn't bad. Film is just better.
But I know if I let it blow out, or have extreme shadows, I will end up with negative black or white areas where no information is recorded. Sometimes it's a stylistic decision, but most times it is just ugly. So post isn't bad. Film is just better.
someone doesn't shoot slide film
anyway, less yapping, more snapping!!
portra: Jigokudani Monkey Park by rstop bstop, on Flickr
colour balance returns as my eternal nemesis. not sure I like this one in terms of subject / composition, but I kind of like it anyway.
and velvia 50, long exposure (40 seconds or so if I remember correctly). original slide has a massive green cast due to, I presume, the long exposure -- it was easy enough to remove but I kind of liked the effect. Yamaha by rstop bstop, on Flickr
Oh God. Freshman year of film school. Every assignment. Shoot full manual. Slide film. Getting those black and white slides back was so demoralizing, but still, when I got the hang of it, the slides that were great recorded information in the dark and light areas with such richness and beauty. When we moved onto shooting 16mm on our Arri S cameras we had to shoot reversal, black and white. Imagine how demoralizing it was getting entire rolls of white frames back from the lab? That sucked so bad. But again when we did manage to get those 40 year old cameras to expose properly, what was threaded on those projectors was gorgeous. It aint just about the grain either. There is detail and beauty in those areas that would just be negative space on digital even with film stocks that are much less forgiving with latitude.
Here are some film shots from an Instameet at the Rippavilla Plantation in Spring Hill, TN. I was shooting with my Nikkormat FTn, with a Nikkor SC50mm prime on some crappy Fuji Superia 400 I got from Walgreens. Scans by PhotoVision.
Whats the advantage of determining the look in camera as opposed to doling it afterwards? Not that with film you determine the look of the product with the negatives.
Negatives are a starting point.
I think the point I'm making is that film is higher fidelity than digital.
Depends on what you mean by that. The resolving power of digital is much greater than film, but lacks the nonlinear response of analog media. When it comes to accurate color, digital also has an edge.
The fact that post has become a norm in a DSLR workflow is just indicative of this. A great deal of the craft of film photography before software was a part of the artistic process was choosing a stock, exposing for what you want done in the lab, whether push/pull, etc., all done in camera. Then when software became involved we used that tool to further our art.
Thats my main point of contention with you. You seem to think that a well exposed negative is the final product of the photography process, while I equate it to a digital raw file. What is done in photo editing software today has been done in darkrooms with analog equipment for decades during the printing process.
Incidentally your PhotoVision scans have terrible color casts. I don't think that Superia usually looks like that. Was it intentional or is it just not corrected for the anti-halation layer?
@Baron Dirigible What is your color neg workflow, if you don't mind me asking?
@Baron Dirigible What is your color neg workflow, if you don't mind me asking?
Shitty and inconsistent.
Lately I've been using Vuescan to scan as positive, multi-exposure with 3 passes, noise / sharpening off and no colour correction. Then I edit the 48-bit TIFF in PS, adjust levels to remove the film base (on a separate adjustment layer) and then use curves to further remove any colour cast / add contrast / etc. When I'm happy with the results I'll spot for dust, duplicate the file, crop if necessary, apply an unsharp mask and export.
I'm also trialling a workflow that involves scanning as colour negative but saving as a RAW file, which apparently scales colour channels to avoid clipping, but doesn't colour-correct itself. So far the results are different, and might well have more colour information, but it's hard to tell whether they're more accurate / easier to work with.
Thats my main point of contention with you. You seem to think that a well exposed negative is the final product of the photography process
I didn't say that. I just believe that analog has a wider range of detail in the shadows and highlights. I am increasingly impressed by the ability of digital raw to retain information though. But you will find detail in film in areas that would be negative black or white on a digital raw file. In that respect I don't think they're equal. I acknowledge and highly respect the lab processes used before digital. I'm not ignorant to what you could do to the image in the dark room, but generally, the practice today with digital raw photography and videography is looking to obtain the flattest image possible to manipulate in post, which was not the case with analog film and motion picture film photography even when heavy post processing was planned. You got it as close to what you wanted in camera, then you took it further in the lab. So if you wanted to just shoot a roll and get it how you want it in camera, you are more than able to achieve that. I'm not saying it's the end all be all, I'm saying that's how this one particular photographer does it and saves time on his workflow.
Personally, I just point the dang thing and shoot and worry about it later. My film camera is from 1967 and the lens is from 1954. and I use the internal meter so I'm amazed when I get scans back. And then I screw with all of them in Photoshop. which is probably why it looks terrible.
Incidentally your PhotoVision scans have terrible color casts. I don't think that Superia usually looks like that. Was it intentional or is it just not corrected for the anti-halation layer?
I don't know? Should I post the original scans and you can tell me? I'd sure like to know. The New York shots were scanned by them too, but I also did a lot of screwing with those too and I don't quite remember what film I shot those on.
we're not working to cross purposes here, remember. i love shooting film and would talk forever about how much information a negative retains and how accurate - if idiosyncratic - the colour representation is, but i do it largely because it will in turn make me a better photographer full stop, digital included. and fidelity only really matters when it lets you down; rarely does a photo succeed or fail because of the technology it was rendered with. there are a few in my last batch that i feel this way about, but i have suspicions it was the lens on the camera i'm using that exaggerated the issue anyway.
After outlining my colour negative workflow earlier, and being less than satisfied with it, I did some morning-commute googling and came across this guide, which I might have a crack at tonight.
I'm mainly interested in the guide as he uses Epson Scan software, which is generally derided but which I think might provide better colour rendition than Vuescan. I'd use Silverfast but for some reason it won't export 48bit TIFF files without a separate program -- at least, that's how it seems.
I totally agree. I merely mentioned I knew a wedding photographer who only shot film and felt I had to explain why that was viable when someone thought that was not a sustainable option. And then I was called to task for certain portions of that explanation.
So I know plenty of people have asked about cameras and lenses and the such, but can anyone here give me a recommendation on fiber paper for printing?
Classes at school have encouraged me to break past non-archival cheap printing paper, and start looking into the finer things of life. I know I want variable contrast, so I can use a filter method our teacher showed us, cool tones, and somewhere between a matte/semi-matte and a pearl luster. Definitely not gloss. I'm hoping to buy off Amazon, or another website if someone has any recommendations, but the options are staggering and there's no method for sorting anything other than name brand.
Any help is greatly appreciated!
Steam
3DS FC: 4699-5714-8940 Playing Pokemon, add me! Ho, SATAN!
it's a bit exxy but when i worked at an art store and had design students clambering out my earholes i sold a lot of canson stock - it's sounds like you're looking for maybe a satin paper? something like this could do the trick. i would recommend going to check out a store before straight up buying online though - you don't want to be stuck with 25 sheets of expensive paper if it's not really right. art supply stores will usually sell them by the sheet, too, so you can try things out - you won't be able to do that online.
yeah ok. don't know so much about darkroom printing. if nobody else here does, the guys over at the "i shoot film" flickr group are pretty savvy with darkroom materials, and approachable. you could ask over there!
Posts
changed my scanning and post workflows, is this any better? it's certainly more muted.
Harajuku Bench by rstop bstop, on Flickr
So good... I really love this one jezz.
Some good Colorado Summertime right here.
My Portfolio Site
That is some MAX level ridiculousness. Not only would it cost more, be more of a hassle to shoot, but I'm betting it significantly increases processing time. Maybe their lab scans and removes dust etc for them? Also, unless they are wasting some rapid fire frames I'm betting they are missing some moments. The wedding photographers I know will have both the first and second shooter go full auto for the first kiss just hoping to get one usable frame. I guess if their customers are happy then whatever. o_O
My Portfolio Site
Yes but they weren't competing with a more efficient method. With VSCO and other such packages it is arguable that the end product is going to be nigh indistinguishable between digital and film when going for a vintage look.
sure, but the five other guests at the reception with dslrs (not to mention the rest, all with point and shoots and iphones held aloft) will be on "full auto" also. that moment is captured anyway.
in such a saturated market (not just wedding photos, but images in general these days) the product sells if it's differentiated enough to be impressive. perhaps they've been able to achieve that through film. it's certainly not unfeasible as a professional process though.
I think digital has trained a lot of people to "spray and pray" because it's convenient, rather than better.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
Yeah, I'm not saying it is impossible it is harder than the current conventional method. If you are paying someone $2+k to shoot a wedding you shouldn't have to rely on your friends and family with their phones/dslrs (which half of them probably can't operate effectively) to capture important moments in the wedding.
Its not one big thing but a lot of little things. You change the ISO on a whim, you don't have to wait/reload film, better low light focusing, better metering, less processing costs, chimping for non-settings related problems like person with their eyes closed, ability to update/reprocess photos down the line if a photo style goes out of vogue, etc.
Hey a fellow Tennesseean! I'm just down the road from you in Jackson.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
AJ's workflow: Send rolls to Photovision. Scans delivered to dropbox pretty much hours after they get it because he's one of their biggest clients. He delivers the selects to client, no edits because he metered and knew what he wanted to achieve when he took the shot.
How long is it going to take to edit all those dslr shots? Especially the full auto ones. Most wedding photographers take weeks, especially when juggling multiple jobs. So with film AJ actually saves time.
I always preferred the result of film and the beauty of film over the convenience of digital. It's well worth the cost and you have more latitude to determine a distinct look in camera, making decisions of what stock to use, what to meter for, etc.
Also film burn is cool
I don't know, kudos to your friend for having a successful business he's obviously very good at, but the attitude in your post rubs me the wrong way.
Well as far as latitude in the shadows and highlights, film has a severe edge. That's why when shooting digital video I aim for a flatter image so that there is actual data to correct in post. Whereas when I've shot film, I've aimed for a specific look as much in camera as possible to reduce the length of the color timing and also because the film stock could maintain the detail in the extreme whites and blacks.
I know in photography it isn't necessarily one to one, but I do aim for a flatter exposure in raw stills. I am increasingly amazed by how much detail I can get out of them in post, but it's because I shot for flat. I know if it was just negative white space, there would be no information to manipulate, whereas in film, there almost always is information and beauty and detail in the whites and blacks.
As for film wedding photography, I know of multiple people who work that niche to great success. Wedding shot on film usually commands a premium.
But I find Obiwan's posts confusing.
Whats the advantage of determining the look in camera as opposed to doling it afterwards? Not that with film you determine the look of the product with the negatives.
Negatives are a starting point.
yeah, i also find, for whatever reason, i spend a lot less time processing analogue shots than i do digital. well, maybe not if you include the development itself, but that's different... cathartic? because film itself has elements of character, it's easier to trust that - or at least embrace it - and leave additional alterations to broad strokes. i also think dedicated photo scanning equipment and software really leverages the depth of a negative to get the most dynamic image at the point of scanning. very different to a RAW file. which is kind of why if i'm shooting on my X100 i'm usually happy to use jpeg and a tweaked film simulation mode.
might tone down the contrast a bit before i publish any of these ones
I think the point I'm making is that film is higher fidelity than digital. I enjoy post processing on film, but the fact is that film provides a greater deal of latitude and beauty and information that digital just hasn't been able to replicate. The fact that post has become a norm in a DSLR workflow is just indicative of this. A great deal of the craft of film photography before software was a part of the artistic process was choosing a stock, exposing for what you want done in the lab, whether push/pull, etc., all done in camera. Then when software became involved we used that tool to further our art.
My statement is not saying post is bad. I'm just expressing the advantages of shooting film. When I shoot with a DSLR I shoot flat because I trust raw will maintain a good amount of information that I can manipulate later. But I know if I let it blow out, or have extreme shadows, I will end up with negative black or white areas where no information is recorded. Sometimes it's a stylistic decision, but most times it is just ugly. So post isn't bad. Film is just better.
anyway, less yapping, more snapping!!
portra:
Jigokudani Monkey Park by rstop bstop, on Flickr
colour balance returns as my eternal nemesis. not sure I like this one in terms of subject / composition, but I kind of like it anyway.
and velvia 50, long exposure (40 seconds or so if I remember correctly). original slide has a massive green cast due to, I presume, the long exposure -- it was easy enough to remove but I kind of liked the effect.
Yamaha by rstop bstop, on Flickr
[edit: bonus monkey!
Snow Monkey by rstop bstop, on Flickr
Oh God. Freshman year of film school. Every assignment. Shoot full manual. Slide film. Getting those black and white slides back was so demoralizing, but still, when I got the hang of it, the slides that were great recorded information in the dark and light areas with such richness and beauty. When we moved onto shooting 16mm on our Arri S cameras we had to shoot reversal, black and white. Imagine how demoralizing it was getting entire rolls of white frames back from the lab? That sucked so bad. But again when we did manage to get those 40 year old cameras to expose properly, what was threaded on those projectors was gorgeous. It aint just about the grain either. There is detail and beauty in those areas that would just be negative space on digital even with film stocks that are much less forgiving with latitude.
Oh alright.
Here are some film shots from an Instameet at the Rippavilla Plantation in Spring Hill, TN. I was shooting with my Nikkormat FTn, with a Nikkor SC50mm prime on some crappy Fuji Superia 400 I got from Walgreens. Scans by PhotoVision.
Beach Shooters by jeremy-o, on Flickr
The Log That Could by jeremy-o, on Flickr
Thats my main point of contention with you. You seem to think that a well exposed negative is the final product of the photography process, while I equate it to a digital raw file. What is done in photo editing software today has been done in darkrooms with analog equipment for decades during the printing process.
Incidentally your PhotoVision scans have terrible color casts. I don't think that Superia usually looks like that. Was it intentional or is it just not corrected for the anti-halation layer?
@Baron Dirigible What is your color neg workflow, if you don't mind me asking?
Anyways, a photo:
Lately I've been using Vuescan to scan as positive, multi-exposure with 3 passes, noise / sharpening off and no colour correction. Then I edit the 48-bit TIFF in PS, adjust levels to remove the film base (on a separate adjustment layer) and then use curves to further remove any colour cast / add contrast / etc. When I'm happy with the results I'll spot for dust, duplicate the file, crop if necessary, apply an unsharp mask and export.
I'm also trialling a workflow that involves scanning as colour negative but saving as a RAW file, which apparently scales colour channels to avoid clipping, but doesn't colour-correct itself. So far the results are different, and might well have more colour information, but it's hard to tell whether they're more accurate / easier to work with.
I didn't say that. I just believe that analog has a wider range of detail in the shadows and highlights. I am increasingly impressed by the ability of digital raw to retain information though. But you will find detail in film in areas that would be negative black or white on a digital raw file. In that respect I don't think they're equal. I acknowledge and highly respect the lab processes used before digital. I'm not ignorant to what you could do to the image in the dark room, but generally, the practice today with digital raw photography and videography is looking to obtain the flattest image possible to manipulate in post, which was not the case with analog film and motion picture film photography even when heavy post processing was planned. You got it as close to what you wanted in camera, then you took it further in the lab. So if you wanted to just shoot a roll and get it how you want it in camera, you are more than able to achieve that. I'm not saying it's the end all be all, I'm saying that's how this one particular photographer does it and saves time on his workflow.
Personally, I just point the dang thing and shoot and worry about it later. My film camera is from 1967 and the lens is from 1954. and I use the internal meter so I'm amazed when I get scans back. And then I screw with all of them in Photoshop. which is probably why it looks terrible.
I'm mainly interested in the guide as he uses Epson Scan software, which is generally derided but which I think might provide better colour rendition than Vuescan. I'd use Silverfast but for some reason it won't export 48bit TIFF files without a separate program -- at least, that's how it seems.
Classes at school have encouraged me to break past non-archival cheap printing paper, and start looking into the finer things of life. I know I want variable contrast, so I can use a filter method our teacher showed us, cool tones, and somewhere between a matte/semi-matte and a pearl luster. Definitely not gloss. I'm hoping to buy off Amazon, or another website if someone has any recommendations, but the options are staggering and there's no method for sorting anything other than name brand.
Any help is greatly appreciated!
3DS FC: 4699-5714-8940 Playing Pokemon, add me! Ho, SATAN!
it's a bit exxy but when i worked at an art store and had design students clambering out my earholes i sold a lot of canson stock - it's sounds like you're looking for maybe a satin paper? something like this could do the trick. i would recommend going to check out a store before straight up buying online though - you don't want to be stuck with 25 sheets of expensive paper if it's not really right. art supply stores will usually sell them by the sheet, too, so you can try things out - you won't be able to do that online.
Sorry, I should've mentioned, I'm looking for photographic paper to develop on, not print off digitally.
3DS FC: 4699-5714-8940 Playing Pokemon, add me! Ho, SATAN!
3DS FC: 4699-5714-8940 Playing Pokemon, add me! Ho, SATAN!
Matsuya Ryokan by rstop bstop, on Flickr
All debating aside, at least there's some talk going around in here and the thread is staying fresh. Hopefully we can keep this up!
And hell, I'm fine with the debating as long as it doesn't get rude. It's good to see this thing moving; I don't see it as a bad thing at all.
Some more of my On the Road series I'm doing.
I could have taken photos of this house all day long... and live in it permanently if I had the moneys.
My Portfolio Site