“Mitch McConnell, besides being a craven hypocrite, is also a vicious were-turtle, who, by the light of the full moon, develops a ravenous lust for fucking shoes, particularly old sweaty Crocs”
Yeah, both the sweep of the rocks and that they visually balance the clouds. Having interesting water definitely helps a lot - a deep lake wouldn't look as nice.
On Canada Day, we light it and throw it off our balcony instead of fireworks.
“Mitch McConnell, besides being a craven hypocrite, is also a vicious were-turtle, who, by the light of the full moon, develops a ravenous lust for fucking shoes, particularly old sweaty Crocs”
Bah, you and your techno speak. But yes. However, if'n I went into the photo shop and asked for a monochrome film, they might look at me funny. You're right though, it's scanned (I do still shoot with film. Sometimes) and I think the scanning process lent it a slight tint.
Go into a photo shop and ask for any film and they'll look at you funny - even a decade ago film users were a peculiar bunch, now they're like the freakshow at those old circuses. :P
To the best of my vague and incomplete knowledge of the archaic technology, the film is b&w - you do darkroom processing to add a sepia/selenium/cyanotype/etc tone and make a b&w image monochrome. Or use a cheap scanner. :D
Aye. Although it can produce one-bit bi-tonal black-and-white images, the majority of stuff will be monochrome.
I used to enjoy messing around with grain on the 100 iso films. 'Course you can change ISO at the flip of a switch now, but seeing real film grain is so much better than digital noise.
