Several months ago i decided to start shooting film again, my goal was to go out very often and finish it and continue my growth as a photographer. Alas it has taken me a lot longer to finish that roll of slide film and have been trying to finish since January of this year. One of the reasons why it took so long is that with film if you really seek to understand how it reacts to light and how to expose it detailed notes must be kept so that you can compare the images to your notes after the film is developed. To many this is a very tedious and frustrating process, but for me i see it as a way to discipline yourself. It slows you down, you have to study light how it falls on your subject how it hugs its contours and changes in color, you have to think about composition. You have to think about what goes into your photos. Many have said in the past and even now that film is obsolete, that its dead but film is thriving within a community that is alive and vibrant. Unfortunately many of the people who shoot film now do so because it is trendy and gives you that vintage look, it is my hope that these shooters take the time to learn the strengths and weaknesses of this wonderful medium. You might ask what the big difference is between film and digital, some say there is none but in reality there is a big difference. Digital for its many advances and incredible amount of details that it can capture still looks sterile, it lacks depth and for a lack of a better term it lacks feeling and heart. Don't believe me? look at a print one printed from a digital file and one printed from film. Digital looks clean, sharp with lots of detail, while these are good things our brains can only take in so much. Film is an analog medium, its soft, grainy, smooth with a very natural warmth, thats the incredible beauty with film our brains romanticize the look of it. Sort of like the way that one language will sound harsh and another will sound smooth and warm (thats why there area called the romantic languages) we are naturally attracted to one over the other. Consequently it is interesting to to think about how many digital photographers edit their photos beyond belief in order tho add grain and that vintage look, the very things that digital has sought to get rid of we are trying to put back in. Does this mean that one format is better than the other? Not necessarily, they both have strengths and weaknesses but i do believe that we are naturally attracted to one over the other. One thing that i will say is that digital with its infant gratification has bred a shooter that is undisciplined, doesn't understand light and doesn't take the time to learn to strengths and weaknesses of their medium. This is a detriment not just to themselves but ultimately to photography in the long run, Photography is not just art but a fair amount of science, a science that is only understood with effort and discipline. So after all this. What about my roll? 2 things. 1) After 10 or so years of not using it I'm out of practice, so i was a little disappointed. Ultimately i don't take it as a defeat but as a a chance to learn and a stepping stone to greater discipline. 2) i really need to get my incident meter calibrated, many of the shots i took with settings from my incident meter were underexposed. I look forward to shooting more, heres a few highlights for you. Enjoy!