well, my computer died, and i was unable to scan photos for a while. i've hooked it up to my dad's computer. the newest photos- in black and white- are from the last few assignments i've had for my photography course. now that i've started becoming serious about it there's no way i can go back to digital. anyway, i'm learning to print and am very pleased with the results. i bought a ricohflex VII at a thrift store and it seems to work quite well. i have 120 film in it now, and i'm going to experiment with it.

i'm very tired. moving to chicago in september. you can expect many great things to follow.

Pics from Chitown up. I find it absolutely disgusting that I have taken more good photographs there than I have in Phoenix at all. I have learned two things:

a.) Do not get your film processed at CVS or Walgreens. The photo techs there do it for a living and nothing else and are very callous with the damn things, I ended up with smudges and fingerprints all over my last batch. This time when I took them to Ritz Camera they ended up- wonder of wonders- absolutely great. It's well worth the extra cost.

b.) Never trust machines. I had scanned a full roll of film before realizing that I HADN'T taken a bunch of washed-out photos, I had instead had the settings wrong on my negative scanner. This was a relief, as I was beginning to think I was an awful photographer.

There is a contest going on: [link] and I plan to enter it. "Get Out of Iraq Now" and "Girl Alone, Millenium Park" are on the docket. w00t! (And for those of you who didn't know, w00t was made word of the year. Good lord.)

dear world: just because you have a camera doesn't mean you have to photograph EVERYTHING. have some fucking discrimination why don't you, no one wants blurry washed-out photos of your dog's butt.

just because your camera has a macro function, does not mean close-ups of your shoelaces are artistic.

just because you are excited that you have photoshop does not mean that EVERY PHOTOGRAPH needs a filter.

conversely, stupid photographs will not be made better with grayscale.

lastly, if you can't see both your hands in a photo, it's not even worth putting it on dA. EVEN as a self-portrait.

fob off!
yours most sincerely,
o

mm. have got a billion photos to edit, forty-two to be exact. haven't managed to take any of the man in my life, yet. maybe because i do not see him as artistically as i should.
am at home now, writing daily, 10,000 words so far. figured out that straightening my hair magically makes it look like i wished for it to when i cut it. got another roll of film processed, so 24 more photos to scan. a meeting with a gaggle of girls tonight that are better at knitting than i am.
if i could only keep my weight down...
man cannot have everything, however. it is in our lacking that we see clearly.

"life is full of loneliness, misery, and suffering, and it's all over much too soon." - woody allen

it's overcast; today is the start of a new life as a photographer. i'm severely disappointed in the quality of my work lately and so have come to put it up for judgement. this account will be solely for my film photos.
my main quandary: noise. it is said that this can be avoided with a lower-speed film, and since i will be shooting frequently in daylight, this may be a good idea. however, for more intricately shot photos when i want to catch water falling, for example? i don't know if the film speed would make that more difficult; perhaps if it was falling very slowly.
nonetheless i have made it my goal in life to become a photographer, and a photographer i will be.
yours most sincerely,
oshinn.