First film camera, film vs digital, & ASA (Analog Season Adventure)

  Anybody who has been following me knows that I was gifted and refurbished a Hasselblad 500C.  The 500C was the camera used for C M Y K (still available at the STORE until Winter), but few know that most recently I picked up a Canon AE-1, the camera that really started it all.  Way back in 1999 and 2000 I work at a pizza place.  This helped pay rent and fund a defunct cable access show I was interested in writing and filming with a group of guys I recently met.  For a number of reasons it failed, but it was necessary.  During our promo and marketing photoshoot I worked with a friend who was starting a legitimate photography business herself.  I was looking at her work and was really attracted toward the (what would be known eventually as "bokeh") background blur and use of shallow depth of field.  I then, as a hobbyist, started looking for a camera to just screw around with.  My boss at the pizza shop let me borrow his Canon AE-1, and along with researching how to properly expose a photo I was free to just shoot whatever, wherever, whenever.  Many years later, I found several film negatives.  Here's a couple from the roll I can share. 

  I say "this is what I can share" because the other photos have people in it and I don't have their permission to show their likeness.  None of these have anything illegal, but I doubt an ex-girlfriend or some people I don't even talk to anymore would want to see themselves magically show up on a blog online, so I bow out from showing them.  None the less given the opportunity to use my boss's camera over the summer was a watershed moment in my life as that was when I wanted a camera of my own to shoot more often and eventually for money as a business.  

  I was asked once on Facebook; "Hey Bender, do you prefer film or digital?". That requires a good and somewhat lengthy explanation, so Nathan, here it goes... (finally)
  Ask an audiophile about vinyl or the best quality of audio and it will be a polarizing answer.  While the analog sound gives the fidelity you want/need digital HD is similar but lack the comfy feels vinyl brings.  Funny thing about that though as a counterpoint, it really is only a matter of time before technology catches up, and with that analogy somewhat explained...
 I learned everything I knew about film through my camera's viewfinder and built-in light meter.  Other cameras wouldn't give me that opportunity if it wasn't baked in, so I consider myself lucky in that respect.  I would have some severely under or over exposed shots if my camera didn't teach me how to compensate the shot through shutter speed or aperture control.  When I went to digital I already had that knowledge, but this time I was given immediate satisfaction as I could see how the shots came out right after the shutter snapped the photo.  In short, I learned on film and I perfected on digital.  That doesn't answer the question but it should shed some light on my preference.  Digital has its place when taking photos for a business, shooting for an engagement, or capturing headshots.  Immediate satisfaction and the ability to capture, edit, and send out a photoshoot in less time than it would take for film is an unbelievable convenience.  I would add that even the picture quality is top notch in modern day digital cameras.  How so ever, nothing goes you those comfy feels quite like analog film.  Film would be obsolete if it wasn't for people like Peter Lik (who shoots medium format panoramic film), or David Brookover (who shoots large format film).  These people know like I know that film will never die because digital can't replicate film in certain respects to clarity or color for larger than 35mm format.  You could argue saying it's the film, not the camera and in digital replicate it (film's look),  but it's really beyond that.  Shooting analog, in any format, is just simply a more personal, enjoyable, and therapeutic experience over digital, which seems almost cold.  Again, in riding the line, digital is great!  Digital, no matter how you nit-pick, has gotten to and is advancing over film photography as a whole when it comes to color, resolution, and fidelity.  Where it falters for now is in Medium and Large format photography, which to most (non-photographers) is unimportant and doesn't apply to them, which is fine. So if forced to make a recommendation; as 35mm and smaller formats go, go with digital; but in medium and large format photography, film's benefits outweigh digital.

  I hope this answers you question Nathan!  This brings me to a smaller announcement I wanna throw out there; I'm going back to film.  This won't take over my digital photography 9 to 5, rather it's a seasonal (Summer into late Fall)  kick back and fall back to my original analog roots.  These shots will be shared online through my recently re-established Flickr account, and choice shots may find it's way to the store. Either way this first year of film will see me use the following films.

35mm
-ILFORD XP2 ASA 400
-Fujifilm Provia 100F
-Fujifilm Natura 1600
-Kodak Gold 400

120
-Kodak Portra 160
-Fujifilm Velvia 50
-Fujifilm Velvia 100
-Lomography Turquoise 100-400
-ILFORD Delta 3200

Several rolls of the films listed will keep me busy for a bit, and I look forward to going analog over the Summer, but more importantly going analog into Disneyland....
  October, I have a family trip planned as we go back, back to California for baptisms.  While there, we (the family) plan on spending a few days in my "laughing place", Disneyland.  This family vacation will not entirely or to great length be documented digitally, which should make for some really creative photos.  I'm pumped, if not for Disneyland for giving myself the freedom to do whatever in film photography without feeling like I NEED to nail this shot of said person place or thing.  So swing on back next week, cause I have a questionnaire for you readers.  This will help the site and me have a roadmap to expectations into the future! Thinks for stopping by, and have a great rest of your week!