# My first roll of film.



## Robin Usagani (Jul 25, 2012)

I got tired of people asking me if I have shot with film or I should try film.... there...  I tried it.  I did learn a lot.  Out of 36 I think most of them are pretty good.   Really tried to get the exposure right and wait for a good moment.  Tried my best to make each shot count.  Here are some of my favorites.  They are all unedited (except the signature) straight from the lab (high res scan).


----------



## Postman158 (Jul 25, 2012)

I LOVE them! Great pictures. Your adorable daughters really help... haha.


----------



## Postman158 (Jul 25, 2012)

#6 is my favorite. I like the grainy-ness.. that B&W film look. Her expression is priceless.


----------



## TamiAz (Jul 25, 2012)

Great shots. I really love the look of film.. I need to try it. I have my dad's  30+ year old film camera that I should try.. Not sure how well it works.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 25, 2012)

You should stick with digital...


----------



## Postman158 (Jul 25, 2012)

What kind of camera and film did you use?


----------



## 412 Burgh (Jul 26, 2012)

Robin,
glad to see you back!

Cute kids! And great captures for your first set of films! I would be terrified to see what my first roll would look like.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 26, 2012)

Say *WHAT???????????

*The kids are so doggone cute! Shot #5 is my favorite.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 26, 2012)

Nice shots Robin. The ones indoors with the blanket over their head are my favorites. Good to have you back, but you aren't posting memes fast enough. Get to work!


----------



## janineh (Jul 26, 2012)

Love them! Whats thw camera?


----------



## PinkDoor (Jul 26, 2012)

Beautiful!  It's like "a day in the life"  . . . . awesome!


----------



## JAC526 (Jul 26, 2012)

I feel like a should post a Meme.......


too soon?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 26, 2012)

Thanks everyone.  It was shot with a Canon Elan 7e.  The film was Ilford b&w HP5 ASA400.


----------



## Mach0 (Jul 26, 2012)

Nice !


----------



## Heitz (Jul 27, 2012)

I take it that ASA400 is ISO 400?  If so I'm kind of surprised.  Sensor grain on most DSLRs at ISO 400 seems less than that -- but indeed the 'quality' of the grain in film seems somewhat more pleasing.


----------



## jani (Jul 27, 2012)

Excellent shots. I normally use Kodak CN400. Virtually no grain and smooth skin tones.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 27, 2012)

Nice shots, now you know what to do put your digital away they are more pleasing than any i have seen you shoot with your digital, try advertising b+w film only weddings and see what happens you may be very suprised


----------



## gsgary (Jul 28, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> You should stick with digital...



No he shoudn't digital has no soul


----------



## roentarre (Jul 28, 2012)

This is what a proud dad would do. It is so good to see her from all angles. Films just give that look of grains. Really great.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 28, 2012)

gsgary said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > You should stick with digital...
> ...



Whatever


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 28, 2012)

Heitz said:


> I take it that ASA400 is ISO 400?  If so I'm kind of surprised.  Sensor grain on most DSLRs at ISO 400 seems less than that -- but indeed the 'quality' of the grain in film seems somewhat more pleasing.



Film grain is evenly distributed throughout an image. Digital noise isn't. Digital noise appears much more prevalently in the shadows, or underexposed areas. Film grain definitely has even more pronounced grain at higher ISO/ASA. 

Lots of people agree that film grain has a nostalgic quality to it. I often use a processing setup to emulate film grain in a digital image, and I feel that it does a pretty good job. Actually, Schwetty is the one who turned me on to it. Visual Supply Co (VSCO)

Regular Processing: 






VSCO





Regular Processing (crop)





VSCO Crop





It's not exactly like film grain, but I dig it.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 28, 2012)

I dig it! Like what gsgary said, these have soul to them and _feel_ more sentimental. 2 and 8 are just totally awesome.




Out of curiosity, what lab did you use?

Also..if you're shooting 35mm, try shooting XP2 or BW400CN at ISO 200, it'll scan alot better than real B&W off a minilab. Grainy B&W's like Tri-X or HP5 look _really_ crunchy and dusty in comparison.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 28, 2012)

Here some real grain 26 years out of date Tri-X 400 developed in Ilfotec, shot with M4 40F1.4





them there is GRAIN 16 years out of date Delta 400 developed in rodinal and over agitated, shot with Zorki 4 50F2


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 28, 2012)

Must be a generation gap.  

I think these examples look horrible...but then again, Ansel didn't have that much noise/grain, so perhaps it's not a generation gap and it's just poor photography.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 28, 2012)

Kerb, if I wanted to shoot a landscape, I probably would have shot it with an ASA100.


----------



## Helen B (Jul 28, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Film grain is evenly distributed throughout an image.



No it isn't. Far from it. The behaviour of silver-image film (image made by light passing between distinct, opaque grain clumps) is different from dye-image film (image made by light passing between but mostly though transparent dye clouds), but both have their own graininess characteristics from shadows to highlights because of the way the image is formed (and each layer of colour film has its own graininess characteristic). This is obvious to those of us who are familiar with film images, and it is also obvious if you look at a density vs granularity graph.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 28, 2012)

Helen B said:
			
		

> No it isn't. Far from it. The behaviour of silver-image film (image made by light passing between distinct, opaque grain clumps) is different from dye-image film (image made by light passing between but mostly though transparent dye clouds), but both have their own graininess characteristics from shadows to highlights because of the way the image is formed (and each layer of colour film has its own graininess characteristic). This is obvious to those of us who are familiar with film images, and it is also obvious if you look at a density vs granularity graph.



Okay, we'll it is more evenly distributed than digital noise from a sensor.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 28, 2012)

Helen B said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Film grain is evenly distributed throughout an image.
> ...



Sometimes I wonder how it would feel to know that a subject that you have spent a lifetime, obviously mastering, is now obsolete.

When I entered the work force, I spent many hours debating upon my path, and decided upon one that could not be outsourced and that technology could not overcome.  I often wonder what it looks like from the other side of the looking glass.

I won't argue with your point.  Honestly, it was over my head and there are very few times that happens to me.

But whatever it is that you are talking about is so far removed from modern photography that an understanding of it in anything beyond a 'feel' is completely irrelevent.

In this case, Tyler's 'feel' that it is a certain way is just as valid as your facts that it is not.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 28, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Must be a generation gap.
> 
> I think these examples look horrible...but then again, Ansel didn't have that much noise/grain, so perhaps it's not a generation gap and it's just poor photography.




 he probably used 25 asa, i take it you have never shot film


----------



## gsgary (Jul 28, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...




Most colleges in the UK still teach film, Digital has not been properly accepted for fine art and most is still film


----------



## gsgary (Jul 28, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Must be a generation gap.
> 
> I think these examples look horrible...but then again, Ansel didn't have that much noise/grain, so perhaps it's not a generation gap and it's just poor photography.




And most digital shots look plastic with no feeling


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 28, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



Kerb... I seldom bother to reply to your posts. 

I believe that discounting a lifetimes worth of knowledge  and expertise  is very rude. Helen is always helpful, and she is very knowledgeable. Just because it is in an area you consider obsolete, does not lessen it's value (much of which also tranfers over to digital photography, believe it or not). 

I am not flaming.. and not trying to be rude.. but in this instance, you are out of line! I think an apology would be appropriate!

(Yes.. I know you will probably report this.. as you do anything you don't like!)


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 28, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Helen B said:
> ...



Why would I report this?  Honestly, it was just a question.  I acknowledge her expertise in this matter.  I said so in my post.  She has obviously mastered her field.  And that is not a term I use loosely.

I just asked a question.

P.S.  And get off your report crusade.  The only things I report are those that are against the rules.  From there, the moderators get to choose whether or not to act on it.  And honestly, in most cases, they do not.  You shouldn't be worried about the 'report' feature of this forum.  Very seldom does anything come of it.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 28, 2012)

Well, I have another roll of film and I will also do some digital with VSCO edit.  I will then invite you film experts to determine which is which.  VSCO does a good job emulating film look on digital files.  It should be a good challenge!


----------



## laynea24 (Jul 28, 2012)

I really really like 5 and 11! I'm anxious to see how my first roll turns out.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 28, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Well, I have another roll of film and I will also do some digital with VSCO edit.  I will then invite you film experts to determine which is which.  VSCO does a good job emulating film look on digital files.  It should be a good challenge!



I remember the first appearance of your early VSCO film simulation/emulation/imitation efforts. Not a single one of the shots looked anything at all like any B&W film that I ever shot...it's not just a matter of dumping some fake grain on an image...that is NOT what it takes to make an image appear as if it was shot on film. Saying that the VSCO software does a pretty good job of emulating film, as o hey tyler did, is not accurate. The way digital abruptly just "clips" in the overexposed highlight regions, as well as its pretty remarkably POOR rendering of 3-dimensional texture on human figures, faces and landscape and other real-world objects, makes digital images look very "flat" and dimension-free. The loss of dimensionality in digital images is one of the most severe losses, and yet, it's not even appreciated by people who are not familiar with what film images really look(ed) like.

It's kind of like people who can not tell the difference between motion pictures shot on film, and those shot on video. The look is different. Same with digital images whenever there is a bright light source in the frame, or when there are lots of very bright, airy highlights; digital images, for the most part, look like crap in those situations, whereas film images have a much better range of tones and renderings in the highlights. Slapping on a crude grain pattern overlay does NOT make a digital image look like film to a person who actually KNOWS what film looks like.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 28, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I have another roll of film and I will also do some digital with VSCO edit.  I will then invite you film experts to determine which is which.  VSCO does a good job emulating film look on digital files.  It should be a good challenge!
> ...




http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/film-discussion-q/293162-film-digital.html


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 28, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> I remember the first appearance of your early VSCO film simulation/emulation/imitation efforts. Not a single one of the shots looked anything at all like any B&W film that I ever shot...it's not just a matter of dumping some fake grain on an image...that is NOT what it takes to make an image appear as if it was shot on film. Saying that the VSCO software does a pretty good job of emulating film, as o hey tyler did, is not accurate. The way digital abruptly just "clips" in the overexposed highlight regions, as well as its pretty remarkably POOR rendering of 3-dimensional texture on human figures, face, and landscape another real-world objects, makes digital images look very "flat" and dimension-free. The loss of dimensionality in digital images is one of the most severe losses, and yet, it's not even appreciated by people who are not familiar with what film images really looked like...



You seem to not understand what an opinion is, do you? I PERSONALLY think it does a good job, but time and time again you have issues with people having a fricken opinion. Just like you jumped down Schwettys throat because of an OPINION that he holds about the necessity of a hand held light meter (which I myself do not agree with him). Additionally, when I stated that your C&C is subjective, and I took from it what I wanted to, and disregarded the rest, you seemed to have an issue with it. Sorry Derrel, I know you've been behind a camera for X number of years, but your C&C is not gospel, and I wont shoot strictly according to your standards because you've held a camera for longer than I have. I won't do that for A-N-Y-O-N-E, not just you. That doesn't mean that I don't respect and value the opinions given to me, and put some of them into practice. 

My clients seem to like it and have requested a filmy looking vintage styling, and so they got it. They were very happy with the end result. I can thank VSCO for that. 

Your opinion is no different than mine, and they sure as shat aren't facts. Neither of them. Just stay calm, and let other people think freely without demanding that your personal views be accepted by all. It's really not tough. 

Opinions =/= Facts. Try to understand that for once, please & thanks. Have a great day!


----------



## Derrel (Jul 28, 2012)

I'll repost here my reply to your FIlm or Digital thread, with the lo-rez images that look like they came from a 1980's screen-printed newspaper..

"The first and second photos have such a STRONG, distracting pattern on them...they look absolutely horrible, no matter what the process was. Same problem with shots 3,5,6,7,8, and 9...all those images also have a very obvious "pattern" to them when viewed at the maximum TPF viewing size on an Apple 30 inch Cinema Display monitor...they all look terrible. Low-resolution. And patterned. So, not quite sure if those are film or digital in origin, but I surely would never want to have my photos look like that on the web or in print."

Not quite sure what you were trying to prove with that thread...the images look so bad that it's hard to want to emulate whatever method they were made with--film OR digital. It looks like either God-awful film work, or absolutely horrible digital imaging...the images are technically poor: coarse, patterned, and just...bad...the "pictures" are kind of cute, but the image capture and reproduction process or process used look very poor by modern standards...


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 28, 2012)

Yes! More opinions stated as fact! 

Nice job Derrel, you really showed Robin what was up by being able to tell which were film and which were digital. Great work. A+. 10/10 would read again.


----------



## Helen B (Jul 28, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



It's not a big deal. I'm old enough and experienced enough in a number of fields to have seen some of the things I put a lot of effort into mastering to the best of my ability become truly and completely obsolete (film is not yet in that category, of course). I have found that it doesn't matter, because a human's capacity to learn and move on is effectively infinite. Learning new stuff keeps the flame alive.



> When I entered the work force, I spent many hours debating upon my path, and decided upon one that could not be outsourced and that technology could not overcome.  I often wonder what it looks like from the other side of the looking glass.



Thank goodness that we are all different. I have never thought about 'entering the work force' - I just looked for jobs in things I was good at that I stood a good chance of getting, knowing that change was part of life. So far I've done a bunch of weird things I could never have planned.



> I won't argue with your point.  Honestly, it was over my head and there are very few times that happens to me.
> 
> But whatever it is that you are talking about is so far removed from modern photography that an understanding of it in anything beyond a 'feel' is completely irrelevent.



Well, I'm sure that there's a lot of stuff I could talk to you about that is completely over your head and irrelevant to you, but I'm not sure of the point you are making. Should everything on this forum be relevant to you?



> In this case, Tyler's 'feel' that it is a certain way is just as valid as your facts that it is not.



Absolutely, why let observable facts get in the way of vague, uninformed notions?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 28, 2012)

According to derrel, the images i took are way off on the exposure.  Am I blind?  Do I blame the film?  Do I blame the lab who scanned and developed it?  I should have used a different film?  Do I blame my noob skill?  I cant seem to make derrel agree on anything.  I dont know anymore.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 28, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Your" opinion on how film really looks doesn't carry much weight with me tyler....you are simply too young to know...you do not have the experience with film. Perhaps you can tell ME, a man over twice your age, which 1980's rock bands were the BEST IN CONCERT? Go ahead kid...knock yourself out...So---was Foreigner  as good in concert as Journey? How good was AC-DC with Bonn Scott? How much did Van Halen lose when it became Van-Hagar, with Sammy Hagar as lead vocalist? What exactly WAS a Blondie concert like? How were the shows that the *YOUNG* Bruce Springsteen put on. you know, back befoe you were born, and when I was in college in the front row? I'd LOVE TO HEAR your "opinion" on how that music sounded,live, back then. And, how good really, was ZZ Top in the 19890's. I await your "opinion". Oh, wait...you were not even born then....and so, your uninformed opinion must carry lotsa' weight, huh??

We all KNOW that the digital recordings on CD-ROM are EXACTLY THE SAME as the live music. Same argument you are making o hey tyler...that VSCO looks exactly like film. I am sure HelenB is getting a good laugh at this too. And Buckster.

Smoke another bowl of that good weed, dude--it helps make sure everything all looks the same.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 28, 2012)

Maybe I should have used a hand held meter and put it on kid's forehead just before I took the shot?  I shouldnt trust my in camera metering?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 28, 2012)

I always welcome Helen's opinion.  She knows what she is talking about AND she listens and not just bash people.  People keep telling me to shoot with film (including derrel), and sure enough.. drama again.  Maybe I should haven't tried film.  Nothing but drama here.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 28, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> I always welcome Helen's opinion.  She knows what she is talking about AND she listens and not just bash people.  People keep telling me to shoot with film (including derrel), and sure enough.. drama again.  Maybe I should haven't tried film.  Nothing but drama here.



everyone and anyone really interested in photography should shoot a little film sometime.... gives a whole different perspective! And think about the days when we didn't scan everything in and edit it digitally...  your print was pretty much it!


----------



## Derrel (Jul 28, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Yes! More opinions stated as fact!
> 
> Nice job Derrel, you really showed Robin what was up by being able to tell which were film and which were digital. Great work. A+. 10/10 would read again.



Tyler,
 Schwettylens's images in that thread look SOOOO HORRIBLE that it's almost impossible to evaluate their origin....it seems almost like he is trying to "game" the results. No matter what method he used, every single picture in that other post looks God-awful. Who cares whether they were made with film or digital--they are so technically coarse and low-rez that NONE of the pictures are a good representation of either film, nor of digital imaging. They all look really "bad". I'm not quite sure why anybody would even bother with his post.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 28, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Maybe I should have used a hand held meter and put it on kid's forehead just before I took the shot?  I shouldnt trust my in camera metering?



Schwetty: if you took an in-camera reflected light meter reading of a woman in a white dress, how many f/stops of exposure adjustment would be needed to make her dress appear as a detailed white, when the film was given standard development and printed on a normal contrast grade of paper? Do you even KNOW the answer, even approximately? 

The idea that you "trust" your camera's in-camera reflected light meter readings shows that you do not understand how B&W film needs to be metered AND how it needs to be exposed. What KIND of hand-held meter reading would you trust? Do you realize that there are two broad, vastly different basic light metering methods?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 28, 2012)

I probably put the dress between +1 and +2


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 28, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Lots of people agree that film grain has a nostalgic quality to it. I often use a processing setup to emulate film grain in a digital image, and *I feel* that it does a pretty good job. Actually, Schwetty is the one who turned me on to it. Visual Supply Co (VSCO)
> 
> It's not exactly like film grain, but I dig it.







Derrel said:


> "Your" opinion on how film really looks doesn't carry much weight with me tyler....you are simply too young to know...you do not have the experience with film. Perhaps you can tell ME, a man over twice your age, which 1980's rock bands were the BEST IN CONCERT? Go ahead kid...knock yourself out...So---was Foreigner  as good in concert as Journey? How good was AC-DC with Bonn Scott? How much did Van Halen lose when it became Van-Hagar, with Sammy Hagar as lead vocalist? What exactly WAS a Blondie concert like? How were the shows that the *YOUNG* Bruce Springsteen put on. you know, back befoe you were born, and when I was in college in the front row? I'd LOVE TO HEAR your "opinion" on how that music sounded,live, back then. And, how good really, was ZZ Top in the 19890's. I await your "opinion". Oh, wait...you were not even born then....and so, your uninformed opinion must carry lotsa' weight, huh??



I'm not really a fan of Classic Rock. 


> We all KNOW that the digital recordings on CD-ROM are EXACTLY THE SAME as the live music. Same argument you are making o hey tyler...that VSCO *looks exactly like film*.
> 
> Smoke another bowl of that good weed, dude--it helps make sure everything all looks the same.



Please Derrel, refer to the post prior to this one that also involves large text. If I stated anywhere that VSCO looks exactly like film, I will gladly redact my comments. Are you incapable of reading? Are you that old, senile, and partially blind that you cannot understand that I stated an OPINION? Do you need a stronger prescription for your horned rimmed glasses? I was not ARGUING for anything, I was stating how I FEEL on the topic. Do you get that? Do you understand what I'm saying? Do I need to put together a power point presentation and walk you through the differences between FACT and OPINION? Maybe I'll even throw in a slide on what arguing a FACT is, because I haven't argued any FACTS at all. 

Furthermore, you choose to attack the fact that I like to recreationally smoke marijuana, and apparently (according to you) makes everything look the same. I however, do not seem to suffer from the level of reading incomprehension that you seem to. What do you think you'd attribute that to? I have a few ideas, but I'm not cold enough to divulge them here. 



Derrel said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Yes! More opinions stated as fact!
> ...


Well, for you it should be easy. Since you're so versed in what film looks like and all. Shouldn't really matter. You've been shooting film for SO MANY YEARS, so you should know, right? 



> it seems almost like he is trying to "game" the results. No matter what method he used, every single picture in that other post looks God-awful.


In your opinion. 



> Who cares whether they were made with film or digital--they are so technically coarse and low-rez that NONE of the pictures are a good representation of either film, nor of digital imaging.


In your opinion. 



> They all look really "bad".



Is that why you never post images?


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 28, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> "Your" opinion on how film really looks doesn't carry much weight with me tyler....you are simply too young to know...you do not have the experience with film. Perhaps you can tell ME, a man over twice your age, which 1980's rock bands were the BEST IN CONCERT? Go ahead kid...knock yourself out...So---was Foreigner  as good in concert as Journey? How good was AC-DC with Bonn Scott? How much did Van Halen lose when it became Van-Hagar, with Sammy Hagar as lead vocalist? What exactly WAS a Blondie concert like? How were the shows that the YOUNG Bruce Springsteen put on. you know, back befoe you were born, and when I was in college in the front row? I'd LOVE TO HEAR your "opinion" on how that music sounded,live, back then. And, how good really, was ZZ Top in the 19890's. I await your "opinion". Oh, wait...you were not even born then....and so, your uninformed opinion must carry lotsa' weight, huh??
> 
> We all KNOW that the digital recordings on CD-ROM are EXACTLY THE SAME as the live music. Same argument you are making o hey tyler...that VSCO looks exactly like film. I am sure HelenB is getting a good laugh at this too. And Buckster.
> 
> Smoke another bowl of that good weed, dude--it helps make sure everything all looks the same.



AC-DC was awesome with bon scott, but was still pretty great afterwards. Van-Hagar was never as good, but i did like sammy hagars solo stuff. David lee roth still the best. Queen had the best concerts, Styx was pretty good too until they lost denis deyoung, tommy shaw just wasnt enough to carry them the same way. Dizamn i miss the 80's...


----------



## gsgary (Jul 28, 2012)

Schwettylens said:
			
		

> Well, I have another roll of film and I will also do some digital with VSCO edit.  I will then invite you film experts to determine which is which.  VSCO does a good job emulating film look on digital files.  It should be a good challenge!



why would you shoot digital and then try to make look like film


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 28, 2012)

... the more important question ... why would you shoot Film and digitize it ?


----------



## gsgary (Jul 28, 2012)

Schwettylens said:
			
		

> Well, I have another roll of film and I will also do some digital with VSCO edit.  I will then invite you film experts to determine which is which.  VSCO does a good job emulating film look on digital files.  It should be a good challenge!



It is easy to tell the difference


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 28, 2012)

dxqcanada said:


> ... the more important question ... why would you shoot Film and digitize it ?


Because we are on an Internet forum?


----------



## rokvi (Jul 28, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




   Sorry I'm just trollin here.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jul 28, 2012)

Helen B said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Helen B said:
> ...



Thanks for the response.  We certainly have different outllooks on life and it was interesting to read a bit of yours.

Regards,
George


----------



## sm4him (Jul 28, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+1 for Queen; and "Yes" was awesome in concert!
I do SO wish that was what this thread was about...


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 29, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> it was over my head and there are very few times that happens to me.


douchebag comment of the year.


----------



## JAC526 (Jul 29, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



This comment is one of the most ignorant things I have read on this forum.

I feel sorry for you.


----------



## pic_chick (Jul 30, 2012)

I really like 5 and 12 she looks so deep in thought in them But they are all very good


----------



## DiskoJoe (Jul 30, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Thanks everyone.  It was shot with a Canon Elan 7e.  The film was Ilford b&w HP5 ASA400.



I was going to ask what film you used. Looks nice. I figured it would. No reason to fear film. I like the grain you have going. Have fun.


----------

