down they look

As always, if you have questions, objections, worries or praise, and especially if you found your picture and want it removed, feel free to contact me. I will get back to you as soon as possible. You can also read my full disclaimer, if you are interested.

 

Just now I saw an article that Ilford film sales have increased by 8% in the last year after declining for many years. This is great news, since everyone who shoots film is always worried that their favourite film might be discontinued. For a long time my favourite film was HP5+ and I shoot also a lot of Kentmere 400, which is also Ilford film. Ilford in general still seems very committed to film. When Kodak recently discontinued their C41 black and white film, they stated that they had no intentions of discontinuing their C41 film XP2, although clearly it’s a niche product. Knowing that their sales are increasing is even more reassuring news than their repeated statements in support of film. Although I shoot a lot of Tri-X now, I will definitely continue buying Ilford film, especially with their cheaper bulk pricing.

These days I don’t really have the time to spend on developing and scanning my film, so I will show you digital stuff instead. Be assured that there is a lot of stuff shot on film still to come though.

A correction for some of my more OCD readers: Yes, the article I saw was a couple of years old, I didn’t notice, my bad. Apparently, when you write a free blog with free pictures and some random ramblings about some more or less photography related topics, some people have the nerve to hassle you about “fact-checking” and “citizen journalism”. This is no news website and I’m a photographer, not a journalist, so my only comment is this: If you want well-researched articles with an always reliable level of fact-checking, guaranteed free of mistakes, then how about paying me a salary? I could certainly use some cash to cover the costs for web hosting, gear, film and chemicals …!

All pictures taken with: Olympus Pen E-PL3 and Panasonic Lumix 20mm f/1.7 ASPH.

© Lilly Schwartz 2014

© Lilly Schwartz 2014

Somehow almost everyone in this picture is looking down …

© Lilly Schwartz 2014

© Lilly Schwartz 2014

Cute puppy.

© Lilly Schwartz 2014

© Lilly Schwartz 2014

© Lilly Schwartz 2014

© Lilly Schwartz 2014

Tango beginners? Probably not …

© Lilly Schwartz 2014

© Lilly Schwartz 2014

Pushing around a cuddly toy …

© Lilly Schwartz 2014

© Lilly Schwartz 2014

Like father like son?

© Lilly Schwartz 2014

© Lilly Schwartz 2014

The dog stayed in this position for no clear reason.

© Lilly Schwartz 2014

© Lilly Schwartz 2014

Rebellious!

© Lilly Schwartz 2014

© Lilly Schwartz 2014

Perfect for black and white.

Comments

  • G.A.

    Kodak is nearly a carcass.
    Although deliciously slow films like Agfapan 25 are not available time ago, there are still many choices. Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Kentmere, Efke make b&w films.
    C41 lacks contrast; not the best choice unless you’re afraid to develop it yourself.

  • Just love (most of) your digital output. Can’t say the same for your film based photographs, though. Sorry, maybe it’s me; after so many years of going all the way with film, much like you…leaving photography, then returning to it after 24 years and plunging into the reigning digital medium, I find the latter to be the more interesting of the two !

    • Lilly Schwartz

      Haha, I better take that as a compliment for my digital stuff 😉 I guess I know what you mean, but I’d suspect that once the novelty of digital wears off you might end up back with analog gear yourself. Digital is fine for some things, shooting animals and kids, but it’s a pretty much random way of working. With digital I come back with 300 pictures of which I can delete 90% right away and maybe 9-10 are ok ones I’d post. The 9-10 ok ones mainly happen by chance as well there. With analog I shoot 36-39 and come back with the same amount of keepers and I get the feeling that I was actually in control even when I’m shooting from the hip. The spray and pray mentality of digital makes it so much less meaningful in a way. The hit rate thing is even more pronounced with 120 film. So far I had at least one picture I really really liked on every single roll. That happens maybe once or twice a month with digital when I’m shooting daily. By the way, I wouldn’t say my film stuff is “better” or “worse”, it’s just different. I like the results from both – else I wouldn’t keep doing it – , but I definitely like the process of shooting film a lot more. I guess it’s a gear question as well: I just hate autofocus and particularly that of my panasonic lens … if it wasn’t for the image quality I would have ditched it ages ago.

Leave a Reply