{"id":15024,"date":"2015-06-24T07:34:13","date_gmt":"2015-06-24T14:34:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wkoopmans.ca\/notebook\/?p=15024"},"modified":"2015-06-24T07:34:13","modified_gmt":"2015-06-24T14:34:13","slug":"random-film-finds","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wkoopmans.ca\/notebook\/?p=15024","title":{"rendered":"Random Film Finds"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"random_film\"<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n\"Film_Canisters-6428\"<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>
\nIn many of my posts I reference and even lament the poor quality of some of the random outdated\u00a0film I use.\u00a0 I’m a film agnostic, if the film fits I will try it.\u00a0\u00a0 The results are often unpredictable but one thing I can say is that as film ages the way that it renders the light changes.\u00a0 It isn’t just that it looses some sensitivity it also can lose contrast and have colour shifts and is often far more grainy.\u00a0 Sometimes this can work to create interesting images but sometimes it just\u00a0doesn’t work.\u00a0 What it does do is look different and that is\u00a0a good thing.\u00a0 As much as I like beautiful\u00a0well done digital images at times their\u00a0homogeneity can be over powering. What’s wrong with a little randomness thrown in?
\n\n\t\t