I'm attracted to repeating patterns. I have this shot normally and canted like this--which I prefer because it makes your eye follow the receding pattern (IMO).

Do ya have oine where the colours haven't been messed with? I'm still a purist, and any obvious digital manipulation I haven't gotten used to yet. I do like the layout of the shot a lot though, obviously, you actually tilted youhead before looking through the lens, and saw something. WEEEEE!!!! ry

I thought this was a film shot and something went whacko with the processing. Bsteph

Oh, I have had that happening to my processing. I got some prints back (3 films actually), at first they looked normal, but after a few weeks they all started going pink and white and now they are getting completely erased. But I thought picnic used digital? :-)

I do--these were manipulated--here's the original--I didn't want 'realistic' because I saw these as 'pattern', not objects. I'm definitely not a 'purist'--I sometimes use nonpost worked photos because they ARE the image I want/see in my head, but if they aren't--I manipulate them.

I think Picnic used both. Were these prints or were these the negatives. I thought when you finished printing a picture you used a fixer. I suppose if one didn't the pictures could fade. Have no idea what is in the fixer exactly though. I thought it was formaldahyde? Bsteph

These are both nice Diane... However I do like the first post better. Marsh if your negatives are fading, it is because the they fixer used was exhausted. I would complain. They cannot replace the shots, but most places will give you new film when the screw up. BTW... I would not take film back to them.

I'm not sure what you mean Bsteph. The second one is straight out of my Canon G1 digital--a .tiff file resized from the large format 2048 x 1536 to an 800 x 600 and compressed to a .jpeg with 25% compression. The top one was manipulated as a digital .tiff file (which is what my image files are converted to from the RAW files from the camera when I save them initially). I don't use film at all nor a scanner (altho' I have one, but I've been using a digital camera for the last couple of years--the Canon is just my new one with all manual operation). Everything was done in layers and adjustment layers in Paintshop Pro 7.02 and Corel Photopaint 9. So to explain further--there are no prints nor negatives. If I printed them out there would be, of course, a print. I don't use a fixer at all and most people don't, I don't think. I put my prints in archival sleeves or behind glass (if I use the Epson printer particularly). But--I don't print most of my photos out, to be truthful. Here's another post worked version--I'm not sure where I'm going with this--probably no place LOL, but I've been sitting here waiting for my cable modem tech to come and have been playing with this photo, my graphics tablet and a couple of graphics apps. (Turns out I was the first to report an outage--they thought it was my line and said they were sending someone out--it turned into a system wide outage but started in my area, so the tech guy never came, of course, but they neglected to tell me--a day lost *S*. Now--we're up again. Very rare with my cable provider, but....)

Thank you Alpha. I thought Bsteph was talking to me. He meant the commercial prints--well, yes, they DO use a fixer LOL. Just ignore the above post LOL.

Yes i was talking to.....who was I talking to? I was talking to whomever had prints which faded. So...I initally was talking to Picnic because of the fading ( however that is because she did that on purpose. ) then I was talking to Marshmallopie who should really stop taking her film to whereever she goes. OK. Picnic uses fixer when she prints her pictures. But Marsh goes somewear weird where the machine does not have enough fixer or warning lights OR they do them by hand and are novices so they forget. Picnic I like the last one best. All kinds of ideas. makes me want to hang out at the car lot. Wow such saucy ideas. Thanks. Bsteph.

No, no, no Bsteph--I think I'm not writing it so its understandable exactly--my fault. I do not use fixer on my prints from my inkjet printers. The commercial film developers do use fixer *S*. Yes, the car lots are interesting for subjects. (I don't even know what kind of cars these are). However, I shot some of a wild little car--actually was going to use it in some collages, also have some with interesting reflections, but here's a quick look at it for you--saucy indeed.

They're Cryslers. I think they are called cruisers? I could be wrong. Basically it the new Crysler sport cool look car. The band ZZ top used to drive these all the time. Hey Jordyart. Don't forget sports cars! Always fun to have one of those cliche pictures. Especially when it works well! Bsteph

I know I shouldn't take my film to that place. But where I lived, it was the only place to go. I lived in a village with about 2000 people, and we could only get our films developed at the local chemist. I soon learnt who I should give my films to to get them done properly, and who didn't know what they were doing. If the pros weren't working at the time I took my films in, I came back later cos giving them to the regular shop assistants was just not safe :) ps. that 2nd image rocks!