The Creative Photography Thread v7 | The quickest way to make money at photography is to sell your c - General

Shaving your head is such amazing catharsis everyone should try it once

[QUOTE=Trogdon;37732747]Shaving your head is such amazing catharsis everyone should try it once[/QUOTE] i want to but ughugh my forehead...

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8005857480/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8308/8005857480_7ca37d6462_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8005857480/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8003673781/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8447/8003673781_220c603e34_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8003673781/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006018765/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8037/8006018765_c3cfaf5297_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006018765/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr

[QUOTE=Edthefirst;37731601]I disagree with your philosophy of photography. It doesn't need a message or meaning. It just needs to look good. His shots are well framed and exposed. I don't think a photograph is solely judged on how much effort it takes either. When I look at a picture, I don't even consider how much time it took the photographer to set it up. Some of the coolest shots on this forum have been snapped by people sitting on a moving bus. I don't get why you're criticizing his "snapshot" look if you are saying time doesn't matter. Besides I don't "think" when I take a picture. All the framing and such is done automatically. I think that's what being a photographer is all about. It's looking at a scene and instantly knowing how to shoot it. Sometimes it comes out wrong and you might try it again, but that also means little to no time is taken on the "creativity" aspect of shooting. All my photographs pretty much exclusively consist of "I think this will look neat" shots. I don't sit around all day constructing elaborate sets. I walk around, see something I think looks interesting, fire off a handful of pictures, and then I sort through them later. Sometimes it turns out sweet, but other times it doesn't work out. I think the important thing to take out of my post is that a picture doesn't need to be of a fire-breathing dragon to be interesting. Sometimes mundane little life moments can look really nice. A photo Blaze posted on this page is another example of this idea. It's a simple shot of a barbeque. I doubt he spent more than a handful of seconds lining it up before shooting, but it still turned out to be a really neat shot. It wasn't anything extraordinary, and yet it still managed to look nice artistically. It wasn't anything more than a photographer with a good eye taking a snapshot. (oh god forgive me if you spent a shit load of time setting that one up :v:) just my 2c on the whole matter. At the end of the day it's all about whether or not I think a picture looks good based on an infinite number of vague criteria. Bopie's first shot looks really neat.[/QUOTE] The situation completely changes when you are not just taking a picture for the sake of it, when you have an assignment. You can't take a picture like this [img]http://www.nationalgeographic.de/thumbnails/gallery/04/27/01/world-press-photo-of-the-year-2010-12704.jpg[/img] with that "oh neat lets take a picture" attitude. Your only requirement can't be just "it looks good" becuse then you devalue pictures that do not look good but are still amazing. If something can be anything, it is nothing. [img]http://img.timeinc.net/time/pictures_of_the_year/pictures_of_the_year_11.jpg[/img] It's not framed well, it's tilted, all around it could be a cellphone shot, yet what makes it amazing is the subject. "effort" in this example is not how you exposed it or used the camera. It is being at the right time in the right place. And of course the time it took to take a picture is not a good point of critique when you don't have it, the picture above shows it. However when you DO have the time I think you should spend the maximum amount of time you need and can spend, of tries and of ideas for each picture. [quote] fire off a handful of pictures, and then I sort through them later[/quote] is just fishing with dynamite. You said [quote]Besides I don't "think" when I take a picture.[/quote] and then again [quote] I walk around, see something I think looks interesting, fire off a handful of pictures[/quote] And that is the paradox in your and most peoples argumentation: You ALWAYS think when you take a picture, every picture does have a message and I just dislike it when the picture is "oh I just came by and snapped a shot". That shows and creates no interaction or relation between you/the and subject at all. That is just as good as watching a surveilance tape and taking stills out of the interesting parts. That creates hundreds and thousands of pictures that are all the same.

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomraworth/8005902243/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8296/8005902243_df82ebe51c.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomraworth/8005902243/]DSC_0150-Edit-2-Edit.jpg[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/tomraworth/]Tom Raworth[/url], on Flickr

Now that is what I'm talking about. Awesome. The tube steals our head. The tube replaces our head? The headless tubeman? Jack'O'Telly ? Also it would be kinda cool to see the whole shirt. Like, take a shot of the empty shirt positioned like that and then photoshop the inner part into that gap.That way it would look more... empty. [editline]20th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The Salmon;37732226]I think what you're missing is what has been left [i]out[i/] of the frame. In these photos, there is a tight feel to both subjects, as if they are closed off to you - but only a little bit. For me, this leaves my eye to search the frame for more, trying to figure out the story behind it and leaving it partially up to me to figure out what's going on. Don't get caught up in thinking you have to be very literal with how you present creativity and so on, it's an ancient and immature photographic mindset.[/QUOTE] Now please explain to me how my lack of experience with analogue made me miss what I can't see. Also I'd like a rainbow rating from everyone who reads this post and got that while looking at the pics the first time. Because it sure sounds like the usual arts-people-blabbering. "It is not important what I showed you but what I DIDN'T show you." Yes that works to a certain degree. But not for those. Your assignment was to take pictures of two subjects. You could've created a narrow feeling by using a very long focal distance. You didn't. An out of focus paperbag does not leave me looking for more, it makes me think "the fuck did he have his finger on the lens?" This is just some stuff you thought up when asked to explain your pictures and you know it. I like that it is not the usual "look down a long hallway" perspective.

[QUOTE=Killuah;37734479]Now that is what I'm talking about. Awesome. The tube steals our head. The tube replaces our head? The headless tubeman? Jack'O'Telly ? Also it would be kinda cool to see the whole shirt. Like, take a shot of the empty shirt positioned like that and then photoshop the inner part into that gap.That way it would look more... empty.[/QUOTE] That sounds like a much better idea! I'm planning on doing loads with these TV's

[QUOTE=Killuah;37734479] Now please explain to me how my lack of experience with analogue made me miss what I can't see. Also I'd like a rainbow rating from everyone who reads this post and got that while looking at the pics the first time. Because it sure sounds like the usual arts-people-blabbering. "It is not important what I showed you but what I DIDN'T show you." Yes that works to a certain degree. But not for those. Your assignment was to take pictures of two subjects. You could've created a narrow feeling by using a very long focal distance. You didn't. An out of focus paperbag does not leave me looking for more, it makes me think "the fuck did he have his finger on the lens?" This is just some stuff you thought up when asked to explain your pictures and you know it. I like that it is not the usual "look down a long hallway" perspective.[/QUOTE] Mate, your arguments are spread too thinly to hold any weight. Just be careful when crafting a response to something. If you've really got something to say, take the time to form a coherent structure to what you're saying. I don't really know what you're trying to convey. Sounds like you've got an interesting point to make, but are so caught up in creating a debate that you've lost your destination.

[QUOTE=Pickwickian-;37734698]Mate, your arguments are spread too thinly to hold any weight. I don't really know what you're trying to convey. Sounds like you've got an interesting point to make, but are so caught up in creating a debate that you've lost your destination.[/QUOTE] It is kind of hard to make a point when bopie answers with that pointless "you don't know analogue well enough to judge the composition of my pictures" post. All in all I'd just like to see people posting more text to their pictures. A picture is nice and important and what we are here for but it is incomplete without context. I would've had no point to argue if bopie put some more context with those. Now it looks like I called him out on "explain yourself", he did and there really is no way to make this NOT look like "I interpret my own pictures, lets see what I had in mind when I took them" and that is pretentious and artificial and I am not happy with how this went at all I would love to get more than "you don't get it" and "you have no experience" because if people are gonna answer questions and critique to their pictures that may, in context, be something cool but are, without context, just pics of hallways and blurred paperbags and nothing more, we could as well just close the thread. Debates like that just entrench us and don't improve our work in any way. Essence: IF you have a certain concept behind your picture please explain, we are not an arts gallery where the exhibitor can't explain to every single viewer in detail, we are a forum where you can read stuff at all times. If you don't have a concept or if you have one and don't post it, don't be huffy or downlooking when people aks you out on it. Please.

[QUOTE=Killuah;37734818] Please.[/QUOTE] I don't see how you can try and justify yourself with an evolving argument which seems to change with any reply that confronts you. Especially when all of this started with this: [QUOTE=Killuah;37723110]I'm sorry but you fucked up both. You could've been creative/goofy and just shoot the fingernail of your mentors and get two chairs and shoot the door from really high above. Instead you just pointed and clicked. Boring.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Pickwickian-;37734886]I don't see how you can try and justify yourself with an evolving argument which seems to change with any reply that confronts you. Especially when all of this started with this:[/QUOTE] Of course an argument changes in the course of a discussion. That's a good thing.

Not when it's a defensive response when more than one person begins to disagree with you. Now, I don't usually get involved in such things over facepunch. So this will be the end of this for me. I'll just go back to posting occasional and sporadic pictures without context or a concept.

Took a walk up in the mountains today with my school: [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/8006109096/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8436/8006109096_4e1777e16e_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/8006109096/]DSC_0335.jpg[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/dannimagn/]Dannimagn[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/8006109758/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8443/8006109758_4e40610fcf_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/8006109758/]DSC_0340.jpg[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/dannimagn/]Dannimagn[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/8006111274/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8182/8006111274_b54d629029_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/8006111274/]DSC_0341.jpg[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/dannimagn/]Dannimagn[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/8006109215/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8443/8006109215_c0a6520fdc_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/8006109215/]DSC_0354.jpg[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/dannimagn/]Dannimagn[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/8006110839/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8033/8006110839_b1c5b714ec_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/8006110839/]DSC_0373.jpg[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/dannimagn/]Dannimagn[/url], on Flickr

[QUOTE=TomboPukka;37734566]That sounds like a much better idea! I'm planning on doing loads with these TV's[/QUOTE] The format is also very TV-like, is that intentional? [editline]20th September 2012[/editline] Ninikai where is that?

[QUOTE=Killuah;37735056]The format is also very TV-like, is that intentional?[/QUOTE] My intention was to make them look like 16mm film but getting that style right without blowing out the TV's static was fairly difficult

[QUOTE=Pickwickian-;37734931]Not when it's a defensive response when more than one person begins to disagree with you. Now, I don't usually get involved in such things over facepunch. So this will be the end of this for me. I'll just go back to posting occasional and sporadic pictures without context or a concept.[/QUOTE] So you say instead of adapting to what people say I should insist on my initial point? What kind of discussion would that be?

[QUOTE=Killuah;37735056]The format is also very TV-like, is that intentional? [editline]20th September 2012[/editline] Ninikai where is that?[/QUOTE] Holmanes, it's near where I live. Like a 20 minute drive away

I first thought the picture of the mountains had some weird noise going on and the I realized that it's the little ripples in the water :D

[QUOTE=Nonikai;37735052]Took a walk up in the mountains today with my school: [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/8006109096/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8436/8006109096_4e1777e16e_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/8006109096/]DSC_0335.jpg[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/dannimagn/]Dannimagn[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/8006109758/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8443/8006109758_4e40610fcf_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/8006109758/]DSC_0340.jpg[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/dannimagn/]Dannimagn[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/8006111274/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8182/8006111274_b54d629029_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/8006111274/]DSC_0341.jpg[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/dannimagn/]Dannimagn[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/8006109215/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8443/8006109215_c0a6520fdc_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/8006109215/]DSC_0354.jpg[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/dannimagn/]Dannimagn[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/8006110839/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8033/8006110839_b1c5b714ec_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/8006110839/]DSC_0373.jpg[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/dannimagn/]Dannimagn[/url], on Flickr[/QUOTE] Great stuff mate. You have a good eye for lighting. You certainly do your landscape and environment justice. Not sure about the last one though. Highlights on the face are blown out, and the framing feels a little off, but everything else is really great.

Do cheap neutral density filters made in Hong Kong actually have a good effect?

[QUOTE=pinecleandog;37735309]Do cheap neutral density filters made in Hong Kong actually have a good effect?[/QUOTE] I got one, and it ruined a roll of film. On digital it's maybe alright for video but nothing beyond that.

[QUOTE=Trogdon;37735425]I got one, and it ruined a roll of film. On digital it's maybe alright for video but nothing beyond that.[/QUOTE] How do you mean ruined? I'll be taking photos of a waterfall with a DSLR

Here are some more: [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006337281/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8033/8006337281_0b65f3d9a5_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006337281/]Will Varley[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006255844/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8462/8006255844_5f7e8b0aa2_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006255844/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006250093/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8316/8006250093_401a1d7ecf_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006250093/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006259294/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8041/8006259294_f10dcc5e0d_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006259294/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006283878/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8182/8006283878_abc8798fc3_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006283878/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006111568/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8452/8006111568_ec381aeb1c_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006111568/]Rae[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr The band in the bottom are called Rae. They're awesome: [media]http://soundcloud.com/dawnchorusrecordco/rae-woodpigeon[/media]

Shame the focus is on the wristband not on the food :( Great scenes but I think some other perspective could work better, especially for the hair people, I could imagine them in a sort of up to down perspective where you see all 3 of them kinda atop of eachother like a totem, the tent would have gone perfect with it if the center of the stripes would was right behind them. [editline]20th September 2012[/editline] Also from the picture I get that the band is smug :p

[QUOTE=Pickwickian-;37734931]Not when it's a defensive response when more than one person begins to disagree with you. Now, I don't usually get involved in such things over facepunch. So this will be the end of this for me. I'll just go back to posting occasional and sporadic pictures without context or a concept.[/QUOTE] you're the best pick.

[QUOTE=Killuah;37734818]It is kind of hard to make a point when bopie answers with that pointless "you don't know analogue well enough to judge the composition of my pictures" post.[/QUOTE] What i'll assume he means here, is that when you're shooting film (especially medium format) you really take your time to decide whether the photo is worth taking or not, whether the scene is the best way it could be and the composition is how you want it to be. I shoot medium format on a Pentax 67ii and so many times I've spent literally 60 seconds or so looking through the viewfinder trying to decide whether the shot is how i would like it, or if the subject is worthy enough for a medium format shot. basically 1 in 10 shots makes you think about what you're shooting a hell of a lot more. So don't be so narrow minded to think he closed his eyes and fired away not caring about the shot.

[QUOTE=Killuah;37734409]The situation completely changes when you are not just taking a picture for the sake of it, when you have an assignment. You can't take a picture like this [img]http://www.nationalgeographic.de/thumbnails/gallery/04/27/01/world-press-photo-of-the-year-2010-12704.jpg[/img] with that "oh neat lets take a picture" attitude.[/quote] The difference here though is between studio shots and real-world shots. I'm exclusively focusing on the latter. [quote]Your only requirement can't be just "it looks good" becuse then you devalue pictures that do not look good but are still amazing. If something can be anything, it is nothing. [img]http://img.timeinc.net/time/pictures_of_the_year/pictures_of_the_year_11.jpg[/img] It's not framed well, it's tilted, all around it could be a cellphone shot, yet what makes it amazing is the subject. "effort" in this example is not how you exposed it or used the camera. It is being at the right time in the right place. And of course the time it took to take a picture is not a good point of critique when you don't have it, the picture above shows it.[/quote] [quote]At the end of the day it's all about whether or not I think a picture looks good based on an infinite number of vague criteria.[/quote] I do think that picture is awesome, and exactly why I stated in my last post. I think a picture looks awesome based on some rationalization in my brain. I don't run through a checklist of criteria and determine if a photograph passes or fails. In this example it looks good because of the reasons you stated. It's emotionally charged, captures a moment with a clear backstory. Bopie's picture didn't capture some intense moment in history at split second, but I'm not using that rationalization to determine it's artistic merit. It looks good for completely different reasons; each photograph is held to a different standard. [quote]However when you DO have the time I think you should spend the maximum amount of time you need and can spend, of tries and of ideas for each picture.[/quote] I don't agree here either. This is the argument Bopie is making (I think). The idea that a photograph has to be the pinnacle of creativity due to multiple attempts isn't really a good qualifier of quantity. Sure, I'll sometimes go out and shoot the same patch of moss dozens of times because I'm experimenting with different techniques, but that doesn't mean the photograph is going to be any better than some quick 2 second candid shot. Injecting creativity into a photograph isn't inherently going to make it a better picture. Again, I think that's what Bopie is trying to say; at least, that's what I understood from it. A picture doesn't need to push the boundaries of style to be good. [quote] is just fishing with dynamite.[/quote] [quote] And that is the paradox in your and most peoples argumentation: You ALWAYS think when you take a picture, every picture does have a message and I just dislike it when the picture is "oh I just came by and snapped a shot". That shows and creates no interaction or relation between you/the and subject at all. That is just as good as watching a surveilance tape and taking stills out of the interesting parts. That creates hundreds and thousands of pictures that are all the same.[/QUOTE] I suppose you could argue that even a monkey will eventually shit out a good picture if he just mashes the shutter release button 1 million times, but I honestly do not see the problem with the "spray and pray" mentality to photography. The artistic process still has to happen, and I'm inclined to believe that the photographs I take are good for reasons other than pure luck. Perhaps I misspoke when I said I don't "think" when taking a photograph. Obviously, I'm thinking about the scene, but I'm not devoting huge amounts of brainpower to find the perfect picture. After almost five years of photography as my hobby, I've learned to just snap a picture that looks good. I'll see it all in my mind automatically. I don't think of some message to attach to my picture or some artistic meaning. I don't have to understand the life story of a person on the street to take a good looking picture of them. I don't think every picture has a message or that every picture is required to have one. Harkening back to the picture of the miner reuniting with his wife. It's not particularly well framed, but it is a strong photograph because of the meaning behind it. However, an interesting picture of a mountain range doesn't really send a specific message. Is the artist trying to demonstrate that nature is towering over humanity? I don't think it matters. All I'm concerned with is if the picture looks good. Again, perhaps the picture looks good because it has a message, but a photograph doesn't need a message to look good. The more I think about this, the harder it is to explain and come up with a solid argument, and I think that's because of the nature of the subject we're dealing with. Art is such a vague concept to define. I kept trying to think about my artistic process and what I do when I take pictures, but it's just simply too difficult to write it out in words. Where you might not like a picture because it feels lifeless and meaningless, I might find it super interesting for completely different reasons. That's the problem with art debates. While I think they are absolutely interesting, we are never going to reach some sort of a consensus. [editline]20th September 2012[/editline] Holy wall of text Batman! Let's take this over to the offtopic thread if you want to keep going. I don't want this to become the creative walls of text thread.

[QUOTE=Edthefirst;37736907]The more I think about this, the harder it is to explain and come up with a solid argument, and I think that's because of the nature of the subject we're dealing with. Art is such a vague concept to define. I kept trying to think about my artistic process and what I do when I take pictures, but it's just simply too difficult to write it out in words. Where you might not like a picture because it feels lifeless and meaningless, I might find it super interesting for completely different reasons. That's the problem with art debates. While I think they are absolutely interesting, we are never going to reach some sort of a consensus.[/QUOTE] /discussion

[QUOTE=pinecleandog;37735439]How do you mean ruined? I'll be taking photos of a waterfall with a DSLR[/QUOTE] Doesn't meter properly. Also kills sharpness, causes weird color casts, among other things. You get what you pay for.

Sorry to hog the page. Last few. Taking a break now. I might be going away for the weekend (not sure yet), but will post more as I get to them. [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006882403/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8037/8006882403_dbe6017548_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006882403/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006879153/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8038/8006879153_46c21413b7_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006879153/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr And trying some more diptychs. [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006894538/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8444/8006894538_c2e319e38d_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006894538/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006886097/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8298/8006886097_2252896d81_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/8006886097/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr All the photos I've posted on this page (and two on the last page) are on the AGFA Vista Plus film from poundland. It doesn't make sense to me shooting 35mm on more expensive films.