(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-11 04:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sleepinspring.livejournal.com
oh man the second one is the best! so rad! these pictures would look so nice with a film slr i think!

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-11 05:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
i'm too poor/prolific to use film, i guess. but i know what you mean.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-11 06:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sleepinspring.livejournal.com
yeah i would be too, but i work in a photo printing lab so i have no worries of the costs, i could just shot however much i want, but digital is still... just such a strange idea i always thought. your pictures are nice though, a picture is still a picture no matter which way it was captured

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-11 06:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
i don't even know what my camera is capable of, in fact. i'm still using my cheap-ass kit lens. i believe that film would be better, anyhow. but i take an equivalent of 3 rolls of films daily, and it used to be much more before, so, even if i worked at a lab, processing all this would be such a pain in the ass!

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-12 12:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
i just realized that ~180 shots is not in fact an equivalent of 3 rolls of film!

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-14 07:36 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vriad-lee.livejournal.com
how would you define the difference between film & digital, in terms of quality? because i see it, but can't quite put my finger on it.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-12 10:21 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] istealcookies.livejournal.com
oh wow, my stomach just sank (in a good way) like when you're on the swingset about to come down. swinging is like being on drugs.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-13 04:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 35mm-love.livejournal.com
awesome!!!!

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags