You'll never understand

yellow rose, originally uploaded by camille94019.

This is one of the two images from my experiment with grandpappy's bakelite super brownie. I actually pulled the trigger three times, I don't know what happened to the other pic.

A few times people have wondered why I don't just get a digital camera. And they all have really fine reasons, the biggest one being that I'll save money. Which is always appealing. They also bring up the instant gratification card and the ability to take a bunch of shots and then pick out the good ones without having to get all the lame ones developed, too. They also say I could make things look "old" with photoshop.

First of all, I rarely shoot a lame picture. Not that every single picture I take is worthy of National Geographic, but its relatively rare (unless I am using the disposeable ones, but that is more for fun/documentation.. and I don't see Lomo making any goofy digital cameras). Maybe my standards are low for myself, but then whose standards matter? I am doing this for myself.

Saving money? If I got a camera as nice as my nicest film camera, it would put me back 900 USD. That's developing for 10,000 pictures. Then I'd need to get a nice printer and expensive paper. So that is even more expense.

As for digital manipulation... that is more time on the computer. And why? Why make pictures look old? There is nothing interesting there. Where would I stop? That involves work. I dunno, maybe I'll get into it more in the future. RIght now it just makes me happy to take pictures with obscure things.