Recently in Film Category

I am having a little trouble understanding the way that film sleeves were designed. Most are designed to hold 7 strips of 5 frames each. That means 35 frames per sheet. Most 35mm rolls are 24 or 36 exposures by standard. The fun part is that in most situations a camera will use 37 to 38 frames on a 36 exposure roll. For me it seems to be 37. Either way, I will always have at least 1 frame hanging off, but in most cases I will have 2. Would it not have made sense for there to be 6 places for strips of 6 on these things? I wouldn't be opposed to sticking a single exposure in the holder backward so that all of them fit, but at least if the thing had 36 spaces I would have a fighting chance. When I had a very nice friend cutting my film for me I at first told him to cut the strips 6 frames, since that is what most things now handle (because of the move away from 24 exp rolls). At this point in time, film is a rare thing, no one really uses it anymore, so wouldn't it make sense for the companies that are still making products for film to make them the best that they can to fit the needs of people still using film (or going back to film)?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kularski/sets/72157623654258769/ 

My first roll has now been developed and scanned. I am happy for the most part, since this was just a test roll, I am happy to be able to identify the subject in each shot. I am a little disappointed that the shots came out as bright as they did. They could have been a little more even in my opinion. I believe the problem lies in that I was using an average exposure meter mode (it looks for 17% grey over the frame). I am considering using a spot metering or center weighted metering for the new roll. I feel a bit like I am starting over with photography. I have become too reliant on the instant gratification method of shooting photos. If something doesn’t look right, just adjust and shoot again, simple. Unfortunately I did not get that benefit with these and therefore all I can do is try to do better with other rolls. Another thing I did not anticipate was the impact of depth of field on film. On some images using f/1.8 mattered, making them almost indistinguishable, but on others, because of subject position, it wouldn’t have mattered if i was at 1.8 or f4, most of the object was focused. Finally, my scanning sucked. I need to go back and redo like the first 20 or so exposures. First some were scanned at 1200 DPI, others have an issue with their colorspace (scanned as color), and yet others are just off-center with the negative scanning frame. There is room for improvement there, but so far I have uploaded everything as it was first run through the process.

I am looking forward to the 2nd roll. I have no intention on taking an entire month again for the new roll. I intend to get started on it soon and spend at most a week filling it up. I have all of my software ready now, so there is no excuse for not going out with the camera and enjoying it just as I do my digital camera (even if i do need to be anal about records).

What images are deserving of being stored on film? As I have only taken 7 exposures of film so far I have found myself thinking about this a good bit. I don't think I would want to us film for special occasions, as there are way too many things that could go wrong, and yet, I don't want to use film for frivolous photography because film is expensive. I suppose this puts film in the category of "serious art photography", but I don't like that, as I don't think "serious" and "art" go together, one pollutes the other. I do believe I want to use film only for art photography and not for the other purposes mentioned. I still question what I should shoot as I don't think I have ever thought about photography in this way. With clay I have to put a lot of effort and focus into what I do because the clay is precious. When thinking about it, film is even more precious because while you can make a bowl, even though it may be a bad bowl, it still has all of the basic properties of a bowl, it can hold things. With film, a bad exposure is just that, a bad exposure. I suspect my problem here in the question of what deserves film is more or less about my compositional skill, which at the moment is pretty non-existent. With digital I shoot until things look right, with film I don't have that option. Perhaps it's time for me to wander around with a viewfinder to my head and answer my own question.