not so quick

i luuuuv the surprise if film.  well, maybe i wouldnt really say "the surprise", but more like the "delayed satisfaction of film".  being fortunate enough to have a couple of cameras (mostly old, mid quality, non-meter-functioning cameras), it may take me months to get through a roll of film.  its refreshing to say the least.  

i should also note that I havent bought film since the summer of 2004 when i bought an ass load of film before heading to brazil, just to be robbed 2 rolls into shooting.  so, nothing is cross-processed or anything like that, its just 6-year-old film that 's been to BR and back and has  called numerous refrigerators home.

SneakerPalooza 2010

This past Sunday, SneakerPalooza was put on buy Sole Boutique.  A very solid event with Wale taking the place of Biz Markie.... put what little shoe game I had, to shame!

:

Question

Enks

DJ Gibb

Mojoe

AJ Hernz

Wale

SneakerPalooza 2010

filmmmmm...

Negative scans from film shot in October.  The difference. 

If you know me, you've probably heard me say how shooting digital can EASILY make you a sloppy photographer.  I know it, but I'm still always shocked when I go through a roll (36) of film and get about 10 good images, that I personally feel (my judgement is based on aesthetics and if it get across what I'm trying to communicate).  In contrast, I can easily squeeze off 70 shots on digital for that same amount of decent images.  Thats 2 times more exposures, at least. Even mathematically, film forces you to think twice as much/hard when shooting film, resulting in better images.. thought I'd throw that out there.