V. good.

Only a V? But this was film.

The graininess of film gives it a painting-like look which is very pleasing. Even today, when film-camera use is almost extinct, there's a growing niche of diehards (serious amateur photographers) still using them because in it's way film is more satisfying than digital and they like the "look" of the results, as exemplified here. I myself though haven't used a film camera for a good while, and am unlikely to again, which in some ways I regret.

I know someone who does his own B&W developing. Everyone has their own reasons for their photography and, as you know, I am the snap happy type, who is not interested in the technical side, but relies on the wonderful art of serendipity.

I don't know when this picture was taken (I wish Ipernity would give us the option of leaving the date blank), but it would have been during a morning walk with my dog, who probably went for a swim. The two pictures are taken from roughly the same spot at a different angle, the lower one being digital.

This is another film from long ago.


I always thought those two trees on the skyline looked like a little dinosaur,
but Street View shows it's no longer like that, as the righthand tree has grown taller.

As you say, everyone has his own reasons for his photography. Your friend will get a satisfaction from the actual (mechanical) process of B&W darkroom work which digital processing cannot replicate, even though with advanced RAW processing it's perfectly possible to reproduce the "look" of film.

My B&W darkroom gear is up in the loft somewhere, having not been used for over 40 years, but I still miss it somehow.

The traditional Tibetan, hand-made wooden casket which I bought (one is more likely to buy these things after watching them being made) arrived today from India. Serendipitiously, Shirley's ashes fit inside it perfectly, and it's a far more fitting home for them than the original cardboard carton in which they'd been until now.

Sad but harmonious.