Yellow Aster Butte
Labels: film cameras, photos
posted at 11:50 PM
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
One from Saturday
I'm wondering if I should blow this up five or six feet wide for my office wall. That might be kind of cool. Things are always changing, but I doubt a digital file produced by anything less expensive than a car could withstand that kind of enlargement. Also, you couldn't take this shot with digital in the first place. Correction: you could. The camera costs $42,000.(click image for a much larger view)
Labels: film cameras, photos
posted at 1:13 AM
Sunday, May 25, 2008
MWR's peninsular campaign
View Larger Map
A quick overview of my day yesterday. I thought it was tremendous.
- napped from 11 p.m. until 2 a.m.
- packed car with photo gear
- on the road at 3:30 a.m. to go around the Olympic Peninsula
- first stop for random photography, Satsop, just before dawn (5 a.m.)
- a few photo stops (great soft light), then breakfast at the Forks Coffee Shop around 9:30
- La Push and Rialto Beach until about noon, when the clouds burned off
- Drive up to the Hoh Rain Forest, thinking of hiking a bit away from the crowds. decided not to.
- Burger and vanilla malt at Sully's Burgers in Forks. I always get a vanilla malt on such expeditions.
- Continue clockwise around the peninsula, along Lake Crescent, around to Dungeness spit with a couple of roadside photo stops
- 30-minute nap
- Get to Port Townsend a bit after 7, saw relatives and bought some cool stuff at their shop there (e.g., a large colored-pencil drawing of a tiger in a deco frame, from 1932 . . . trust me, it's cool). Had a great dinner of mackerel poki and black cod kasuzuke, which turned out to be exactly what I was in the mood for.
- Get to Bainbridge ferry at 10:45. Next boat at midnight.
- Home a bit before 1 a.m.
- 522 miles of driving
Labels: expeditions, film cameras, photography, photos
posted at 2:38 PM
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Friday, May 02, 2008
Photo.net logic
hey bill,
Yes i'm aware the camera must be perfectly level for straight horizons :) but i'm just wondering how much i can angle my camera down (so the horizon will be above halfway) with the lense shifted BEFORE that starts taking place, get me?
Labels: film cameras, mocking others, photography
posted at 4:32 PM
Monday, August 13, 2007
Wedding photography
Labels: film cameras, photography
posted at 12:11 AM
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Mmmm . . . delish
At the camera store today, it was a nice surprise to find that Fujifilm's latest new emulsion has finally hit the shelves. Since many serious users of slide film would tell you there is nothing acceptable faster than ISO 100, having a film like this available will be cool, perhaps especially for my medium-format use with slower lenses. The early notices are very good. How thrilling it all must be for you.
Labels: film cameras, photography
posted at 9:10 PM
Thursday, July 12, 2007
1/4 sec., camera slipped
Sometimes a somewhat cool shot can result from a mistake or bad luck.
Labels: film cameras, photos
posted at 7:13 PM
Sunday, May 13, 2007
It's 2027. Do you know where your baby pictures are?
My brother, one of the new parents I mentioned in the recent post about digital photography, isn't buying my pessimism about how long today's digital photos will be around. He writes:
I think you need a more detailed analysis on your blog about exactly what you think is going to happen with the digital photos. Currently JPEG is probably the most common format in the world. One can assume that 100s of millions are taken daily. You don't think that format will be supported in 20 years? I think you're crazy. At the bare minimum, there will be common and free programs to convert
your existing JPEGs to whatever format is prevalent at that time. But I've been doing computer graphics stuff since 1993 . . . (14 years ago!! Close to 20!) and all the formats that existed then exist now—PSD, TIFF, PICT, EPS, etc. Even the unusual formats can be converted with specialized software like Debabelizer. Program files (WP, Quark) may get harder and harder to open if you don't keep them updated. But standard file formats, I don't see an issue.
50 years—maybe.
And of course, if the files are lost, destroyed, deleted, etc. But of course that can happen with anything in life, including prints and negatives, which can go bad as well and usually only exist as one copy.
The following is a version of my response to him.What I see happening is that the average person's photos will become unavailable for all practical purposes through a combination of creeping technological obsolescence and human nature. You can't just look at the strongest link in a chain (the file formats, maybe) and conclude that the chain is sound.
I don't dispute the basic premise that these digital files are eternal, in theory. A row of ones and zeros is eternal. And the main file formats probably will continue to exist indefinitely, although I'm not positive about that and it seems possible that there are already issues on the horizon with JPEGs, such as perhaps they will not contain the amount of color-space information expected in the future.
It is definitely possible for a diligent person or organization to make sure all of their digital files are preserved and accessible on an ongoing basis. This is mostly the province of users who rely on their files professionally. My guess is that even the most diligent of these users carry less than all of their files forward, relying on their contemporaneous expectations about what they will need in the future. The accuracy of those expectations is open to question, naturally, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
What I'm predicting is that the average person's photos taken today are not likely to exist in a practically accessible form in 20 years, give or take. By "average person", I mean the 99% of the population that relies on digital photography to record memories but to whom everything my brother wrote above past JPEG would be unfamiliar gibberish. I mean the layperson who thinks that recordable CDs are robust like commercially-recorded CDs and will last forever, who thinks once something is on CD in a drawer somewhere, it's safe. I mean the person who, when he gets a new computer, transfers the main data files and puts the old machine in a closet since "some of my old files are still on there." I think I am describing most people.
When it comes to preserving their data, most of these people will end up proving the old adage "failing to plan is planning to fail." They find out that JPEGS etc. are likely to exist for the foreseeable future, and they move on to more pressing matters.
Today, a person with a bunch of digital files looks forward, if he does at all, and sees a nice gradual progression of technology receding into the future. But I think there are many, many ways that over 20 years the files can disappear or become unavailable absent great effort. As an example, I think of my own college and law-school papers, which I wrote on the old Leading Edge Model D (640K of RAM!) using WordPerfect 4.0 and MS-DOS. These are stored on 5-1/4" floppy disks. For a while after I wrote these minor works of genius, I continued to own my Leading Edge. One day, I gave it to my girlfriend's mother because it was obsolete and she needed a computer. (I didn't replace it at the time with another home machine, which means that there was a time in the pre-WWW era when I figured I had a computer at work so didn't need one at home—how bizarre that seems to me now.) I stopped having a computer that supported the 5-1/4" floppy storage medium (I can't recall if there were machines that had both 5-1/4" and 3-1/2" drives—probably, but I think most people leapfrogged directly to 3-1/2"-only setups), which ended whatever "in-house" capacity I may have had to port the files to another system. Eventually Windows replaced MS-DOS, the "DOS shell" function vanished, WordPerfect almost disappeared, Word stopped supporting that legacy file format, etc. At no point in the 20 years since I wrote the first of my college papers was there one event where they disappeared or became unreadable, yet for practical purposes they unavailable to me. And still they have not vanished. I have the floppies in a box in the basement somewhere. But even though I think from time to time that I should find a company to get them off the floppies and into a readable format before it's completely too late, that is not a priority and, realistically, probably won't become a priority at any time in the future. So my papers are on their way to really being gone. In much less than 100 years there will be no trace of them.
What happened (is happening, really) with my college papers is completely unique in its particulars and, I think, very typical on the level of practical experience.
It seems to me that some version of the foregoing will happen to most of today's digital photos. The average person is giving roughly no thought to systematically preserving images. They sit on hard drives, maybe backed up on CDRs or DVDs, all media with significant failure rates and that depend on various bits of today's technology to make them work. It's hard to predict what transition among all those of creeping obsolescence will have the single greatest impact. Perhaps when USB cables disappear. Or CDs. Today you might hear "then I upgraded to a PC that didn't have a floppy drive." What will you be hearing in twenty years?
Ultimately, I think the combination of constant technological change and human nature is what will doom (most of) most people's photos. The absolute impermanence of various recording media is a secondary concern. The stability of encoding conventions like JPEG hardly enters into it. Realistically, favorite images may be saved and a lot of others will not be. Perhaps companies like Google end up assuming (more or less by default) a quasi-archival function for the photos of average people.
It's true that "one-copy" physical media don't always last, and are vulnerable to various (individually very improbable) catastrophes. You could come up with an annualized rate at which this could be expected to happen. It is a rate that is not too much affected by lack of specific human attention. In 20 years, most of the film sitting in the backs of closets will still be fine. Any digital files stored that way will be unavailable (someone could "back out" an imputed annualized rate of decay for digital files left sitting unattended, which would interesting to see). In terms of other stuff you have around the house, film is more like a book and digital is more like a houseplant. You can keep the houseplant alive for a long time, and if you propagate it right maybe it will live forever. But the book just sits there and is fine for a long time with no attention. And how many of our grandparents' houseplants do we have? This is not a perfect comparison, to be sure, but interesting to think about.There is an interesting online discussion post by a professional photographer who does lots of work for major clients and has been fully digital in his studio for 7+ years—a serious guy. I don't think the comparison he makes with old videotape is entirely apt, but it makes you think. His point about digital RAW files is one I had not considered. He points out that RAW (what you shoot in digitally if you are "serious") is not a standardized format at all. His basic point: "Digital is disposable in my book."
As a long-term archiving solution, recording digital images on film is accepted as one of the most reliable and stable storage methods. Here are some interesting observations from a somewhat biased source, a company selling film recorders or film recorder archiving:
Digital Data Archiving Gets Neglected
In business as in private life the long-term storage is neglected. Documents of considerable historical and sociological importance will be lost. Even in professional archiving institutions the digital archives all have a astonishingly short 'shelf-life'.
It becomes necessary after 10-15 years to transfer the entire digital archive from one storage system to another with increasing costs.
Digital Media with an Expiry Date
Digital storage media age and at a much faster rate than analog ones. CD-ROMs have been and still are one of the most popular storage media, yet they are among the least durable media we have. Egyptian papyrus or documents of medieval Europe survived for centuries.
Missing Storage Systems and Computers
Storage media develops as fast as processors. The replacement of computer generations is significant in a number of ways:
- when a system vanishes, data formats are lost
- when a system vanishes, connections and system buses are lost
- whenever a new system comes onto the market, this increases the pressure for change and the elimination of older systems.
Digital File Formats That Everyone Has Forgotten
Not only the physical durability of the media themselves and the usability of the storage media is limited, but also the file formats used for the information also change roughly every ten years.
Practically speaking, this means that every ten years when the inevitable transfer of data takes place, a certain proportion of the data won't be converted and in time will become unusable. This is of course the very opposite of what archives, museums and libraries were established for in the first place.
Here's something interesting from Stewart Brand that echoes my college paper situation:
The loss is already considerable. You may have noticed that any files you carefully recorded on 5l/4" floppy disks a few years ago are now unreadable. Not only have those disk drives disappeared, but so have the programs, operating systems, and machines that wrote the files (WordStar in CP/M on a Kaypro?). Your files may be intact, but they are as unrecoverable as if they never existed. The same is true of Landsat satellite data from the 1960s and early 1970s on countless reels of now-unreadable magnetic tape. All of the early pioneer computer work at labs such as MIT Artificial Intelligence is similarly lost, no matter how carefully it was recorded at the time. The pioneer work of today is just as doomed, because the rate of digital obsolescence keeps accelerating, and the serious search for a long-term strategy for storage has yet to begin.
I would love to get some comments on this entry. What do you think about these points? Do you think the average person will have access to today's photos in 20 years?
Labels: film cameras, if only they would listen to MWR, parenting, photography, scenes from my outbox
posted at 1:58 PM
Friday, May 11, 2007
How safe are your memories?
I recently tried to sell my mother, the recently-minted grandmother of a one-year-old (my niece), on the idea that she should be taking photographs of her granddaughter with a film camera. My idea was that if she were to spend $60-100 for camera X, I would lend her very nice lenses Y and Z that I never use (including a Nikkor 105/2.5, if that means anything to you) and she would be able to take some lovely, natural light images of her granddaughter that would distinctively memorialize their visits.
Her response: "Jeez, there are so many photos of [her] available that I don't have a great urge to take more."
I couldn't argue that that there are a lot of photos of her available. Most of them are digital record shots taken indoors with flash that I am not sure will be around in 20 years, but it's true that there are lots of them. Rather than insist, I went back to dangling the same offer in front of a friend who already favors film for shots of her kids. She might yet take me up on this.
Soon after the exchange with my mother, I saw a segment on Nightline about how the advent of digital cameras and editing programs is increasingly enabling average people to take "perfect pictures." Then I read an article in the New York Times about the often absurd shutter lag of consumer digicams. This piece opened with typical NYT digicam fawning—"Digital cameras are amazing"—and then went on to detail issues that would ruin the experience of any serious person trying to use one these sluggish cameras.
All this made me think about the several new parents I know who, while keeping the many balls of new parenthood aloft, have been memorializing their children with consumer digicams. It's the easiest thing to do, of course. I have already explained some of the reasons that I think this is a bad approach that both the parents and the children will be sorry about later, but I recognize that it's what most people are going to do. So I thought I would come up with a few suggestions and considerations about recording your child's life with a consumer digicam.
- Try covering your camera's flash window with a piece of frosted cellophane tape or the frosted part of a Post-It tape flag. This will moderate and diffuse your flash and make your flash photos look somewhat better. You will likely decide to leave the covering in place permanently.
- Experiment with pretending that your camera does not have a flash, a display screen or a delete button. Be alert for opportunities to shoot without flash. Compose your shots with the camera's optical viewfinder and pretend that you won't have the opportunity to review them later. Pretend that you have limited storage and need to make every shot count.
- Treat photography partly as a separate activity, not only as an adjunct to everything else. Take advantage of overcast days to go outside and get some shots with diffuse natural light. Plan photos in the shade or natural light. Try to get some candid shots with your child's attention focused elsewhere than on the photographer.
- Consider the distinct possibility that if you have given no thought to how your digital images will be perpetuated in a viewable form over decades, that in itself may be an indication that they will not be. I think about my own college papers, the earliest of which I completed more than 20 years ago. I didn't give much thought to how I would be able to read the files in the future, and now it would take an extreme effort to read them. They are on 5-1/4" floppy disks, in WordPerfect for MS-DOS format. They are for most practical purposes already gone. I think the photos you are taking of all these irretrievably precious moments are likely to suffer the same fate. Some might not, most will, and your lack of any kind of plan makes it very likely that I will be proven right. So shoot some film.
Labels: film cameras, if only they would listen to MWR, parenting
posted at 1:56 PM
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Things to do while you're alive [Change to less pandering title]
Sure, I could go on and on about how buying a film camera is one of the
Don't even get me started about my list of things to do while you're alive. Quite a few of them have something or other to do with you, but not all. So don't get a big head, Live-o!
Labels: film cameras, irony, Only in Don't Trust Snakes, what passes for introspection
posted at 11:01 PM
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Why I love film cameras, part 14
I make no great artistic claim here, nor am I saying no digital camera could take a photo like this (the Canon 5D with the 85/1.2 would do nicely). Still, I think this is a far cry from the kind of point-and-shoot digicam shots most parents generate exclusively these days. Even those who don't mind (or just don't know to mind) those flash-bathed, everything-in-focus images from the ubiquitous PowerShots and Coolpixes will be disappointed in twenty years when, for any number of reasons, they don't have access to most of their photos. This web forum post is an interesting read. The author is a very well established professional photographer.Labels: film cameras, photography, photos
posted at 5:57 PM
Thursday, December 14, 2006
A very good year
It was a very good year for the Leica M3. (The one on the Time cover has been taped up.)
Labels: film cameras, photography
posted at 12:13 PM
Monday, November 13, 2006
Why I love film cameras, part 13
Labels: film cameras, photography
posted at 12:15 AM
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Why I love film cameras, part 12
Rendering of black synthetic fibersMakes it pretty hard to photograph people when certain black clothing comes out purple. Check it out. Adding a filter in front of some of the finest lenses ever made is not an attractive option.
The elimination of color fringing and the improvement of image resolution results in higher IR sensitivity. This causes some synthetic textiles to appear an artificial-looking purple.
If the higher IR sensitivity has a disturbing effect in certain applications, e.g. fashion photography, LEICA Camera AG offers its customers a special IR barrier filter. This is screwed on in front of the lens and is an ideal combination of IR, UV and protection filter. - Official Leica Statement regarding the M8
Film is a mature technology.
I do think there is art in how this warning is phrased. Along the lines of:
Due to the high spiritual purity of the Ark, users may experience facial melting. If the high spiritual purity has a disturbing effect in certain applications, e.g. world domination, Lost Ark AG offers its customers special blindfolds.
Labels: film cameras, photography
posted at 12:09 AM
Friday, October 13, 2006
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Why I love film cameras, part ten
Kodak Introduces Enhanced PORTRA Color Negative Films with Finer Grain, Spectacular Skin Tones, Vivid Color and Ideal Scanning PerformanceOh, but film is dead. I forgot. That's probably why, after the new Portra 160NC is introduced, three of my four most-used films will have come on the market as new or reformulated emulsions within the preceding three years (160NC, Fuji Pro 400H and Fuji Astia 100F).
ROCHESTER, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 11, 2006--
Continued Innovation Gives Pro Photographers High Quality Films to Achieve Impactful Images
In a move that underscores its ongoing support of the professional photography market, Eastman Kodak Company today introduced enhanced versions of its iconic KODAK PROFESSIONAL PORTRA color negative film family, comprising 160 VC, 160 NC, 400 VC and 400 NC film. These films help professional photographers create stunning images with finer grain, spectacular skin tones, and improved scanning performance for greater enlargement capability. Plus, PORTRA 160VC and PORTRA 400VC films now provide a more ideal combination of higher color saturation and lower contrast for optimal performance in high-color applications. - Kodak Press Release
I do have reservations about patronizing a company that uses a "word" like "impactful" in its press release, but these are trying times.
Labels: film cameras, photography
posted at 12:52 AM
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Film cameras: They will protect you from death
Well, perhaps not. But I did manage to draw you in to this diffuse collection of further photography musings, to wit . . . . White balance is one area where color digital has a clear advantage over color film, especially with the proliferation of different types of non-tungsten artificial lighting. With color film, you always need to be aware of the differences in color temperature of outdoor vs. indoor light. For this reason, I almost always use black and white film if I know I'll be shooting indoors. I could get a color film balanced for tungsten light or--these days--scan the film and correct the color after the fact using Photoshop, but it's easier just to use black and white. As sensors get better at high-ISO performance, digital should be great for low-light photography. I'm partial to a full-size sensor so lenses will behave as they do in 35mm film photography--notably, so not everything is in focus.
I've seen some amazing examples shot with a Canon 5D - 85mm f/1.2 combo, but that's $2K for the lens and $3K for a the body that, unlike certain film cameras, won't be state-of-the-art in its class indefinitely. The 5D is a real SLR with a real optical finder, but it's not a finder that's designed for manual focusing. So I'm not sure how useful it would be focusing an 85/1.2 critically, since that lens has razor-thin depth of field close up at full aperture. But if you could crank the ISO high enough without excessive "noise", you wouldn't need a fast prime lens at all. Fuji just released a digicam, the F30, I think, that supposedly has amazing performance even at ISO 3200 (but no optical viewfinder at all). It also has a mode where it will take a flashless photos and a flash photo within milliseconds of each other on the same press of the shutter. That's a clever way to show people that they don't need the flash for every shot. 
In the last post I mused about how digital promotes a type of visual illiteracy. The other kind of visual illiteracy I'm sure automatic digital zoom cameras have encouraged is the tendency of people to stand wherever they find themselves and zoom to fill the frame with the subject. People who started out with zooms and follow the inclination to shoot this way are never going to learn composition. Not only do they likely fail to consider secondary details that could be in the frame if they didn't zoom so far--and which might make for a more interesting or balanced composition--they also have no concept about perspective. I've seen people on Internet forums trying to explain that perspective is determined by the position of the camera relative to the subject, and those reared on zooms often just don't get the difference between moving your body and zooming. When zooms were first introduced, of course, manufacturers imagined them within the paradigm of the fixed-focus world they came into. The idea was that every competent photographer would size up the scene, decide what focal length it called for, set the zoom for that focal length and only then put camera to eye and maybe do minor framing adjustments. I suspect some pros still use that kind of discipline. The average person today doesn't even think in terms like "I need a [35/50/85]mm lens here" etc. 
I figure zooms also delivered the final blow to the head of once fairly popular 135mm short telephoto lens, which already seemed like a "tweener" focal length on an SLR—too long use indoors, too short for a lot of "real" telephoto chores. And it fell right in the middle of a range (70-200mm) that would be covered by your "long" zoom. So R.I.P. They still make them, of course, but I can't imagine many people buy them. A little-known fact is that 135mm became a standard focal length because it is the longest lens that can be reliably focused with a Leica or other 35mm rangefinder with similar "rangefinder baselength." The Nikkor 135mm f/3.5 was one of the three original Nikkor lenses that David Douglas Duncan famously chose over Leica and Zeiss to cover the Korean War in 1950. The others were a 50mm f/1.5 and an 85mm f/2. He and some colleagues tested them and found them better by whatever standards they were applying than the comparable German glass. This choice was well publicized and helped secure Nikon's reputation (one account has Nippon Kogaku being run out of a garage when Duncan found them, but I don't know if that's true). German purists insist that the Nikon lenses were probably only better in the contrast qualities desired for magazine work, not in resolution overall. And they were all Zeiss designs the U.S. got as part of its reparations (Wikipedia: "Germany paid reparations to France, Britain and Russia, in the form of dismantled factories, forced labour, and shipments of coal. The U.S. settled for confiscating German patents and German owned property in the U.S., mainly subsidiaries of German companies." That's our U.S., ever the good sport.) I'm not fully clear on how a Japanese company wound up with them.Labels: film cameras, photography, photos
posted at 12:10 AM
Sunday, July 16, 2006
"They are normal people"
Someone writing on a photography forum today, telling a story involving family members, noted: "They are normal people and have only two cameras." (This isn't a posting about the number of cameras I have—suffice it to say it is greater than the number of the constitutional amendment I might allude to if pressed to say how many cameras.) Reading that got me thinking about how the prevalence and penetration of digital photography has changed the relationship of normal people to photography. Carrying forward the automation that began with film cameras, consumer digital cameras make it very easy to take photographs with no glaring technical deficiencies. Something is usually in focus, the shot is exposed well enough, etc. And if you do mess one up badly, you'll be able to see that and shoot it over until you get it right. This seems to me a major source of the increasingly prevalent supposed truism that "digital cameras take better photos" (better than what is not so often stated, but we suppose the reference is to dad's clunky old film gear).
So it's possible to produce recognizable photographs without knowing what used to be considered the first thing about photography. Nothing wrong with that, in a way. However, I'm starting to think that soon the average person under thirty is likely never to have seen an amateur photograph taken with film equipment. (Why I love film cameras.) The result is a somewhat sad kind of multi-level image illiteracy. I'm musically illiterate, so I'll analogize to that. Most people wouldn't recognize that it would be impossible to take the images in this entry with any digicam they are likely to ever touch (I'd be unlikely to notice that a piece of music was played with only the white keys on the piano). Most people would think they could create images like this if they understood their cameras better, as I might think I could replicate a certain piece of music if I knew my white-key-only instrument. Neither they with their consumer digicams nor I with my deficient piano knows enough to understand the instrument's limitations.
These adorable children were in places without huge amounts of light. A typical parent's typical digital camera on automatic would have bathed these scenes with flash. Could you detect that the most critical fact about these images is that they were taken using natural light? Did it also immediately strike you that the backgrounds in the last three images are nicely blurred to indistinction, and that the sea of colorful toys has a nice level of blur too? Without the blur, these would be much different photos—much worse, in my opinion. If you took these with the newly proverbial any-digicam-you-are-likely-to-ever-touch, everything would be pretty much in focus. Yet 99 people out of 100 would presume that results like these are possible with the right "scene mode" setting on a Nikon Coolpix.
Over time, I think, there will be fewer and fewer images like these floating around among what the bulletin board poster called "normal people." Already, few people are probably even aware that it's possible to blur out a background like that. Soon enough, images with certain qualities will more or less disappear from the average person's visual vocabulary, so not only will they not miss that kind of image, but they won't recognize the distinctive characteristics of the few such images they may happen to see. Digital makes competent execution easy, but there is a cost.Labels: film cameras, photography, photos
posted at 10:55 PM
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Why I love film cameras, part nine
Atlanta (June 17, 2006) — Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have completed a prototype device that can block digital-camera function in a given area. Commercial versions of the technology could be used to stymie unwanted use of video or still cameras. [LINK]Ah, but their yellow-jacket style is no match for my striking-ASP(H) style!
Labels: film cameras, photography
posted at 1:05 AM
Previous Posts
- Does David Axelrod have some economic expertise I'...
- This is idiotic
- Blogging slowdown
- Snow
- Caroline Kennedy
- A most charitable characterization
- Emoluments Clause
- Don't be anal
- Astronomy fun facts
- Eric Holder
Archives
Clutter
Unlikely Guest
Syndication
- Subscribe to the
Counter
|