If you’d believe it, I’ve been shooting more digital this year. At this point, I can’t describe it succinctly. I suppose with my studies I’m eager for more rapid learning in composition and exposure, which digital allows. Not to mention the fact of frugality: notwithstanding the previous investment, each digital exposure is essentially free. And yes, I’ve learned. And yes, I’m often editing to emulate film. I suppose as with most passionate hobbies, I’m not really sure why I’m shooting digital. I’m not really sure why I’m shooting photographs. It just seems to have to be done. Unfortunately, photography’s presence in my life has nearly reached a status quo. It doesn’t have tangible, recognizable benefits that are clear to me. Yet without it, something’s missing. I’ll just leave this here.

I’ve previously written of experiencing a photographic renaissance, whereas my yearly exposure count doubled. Yes, the exposure was “a process I love[d]” (see previous link). It is apparent that in 2012 my number of exposures rose significantly.

[table caption=”Yearly Exposures” width=”500″ colwidth=”20|100|50″ colalign=”left|left|center|left|right”]
year,exposures,
2010,409
2011,656
2012,1473
2013,94
2014,226
2015,364
[/table]

Yet that ignored the processing, scanning, and deliberation. Which, as of recent, has been tumultuous. Furthermore, the exposure has become preemptively overwhelmed. “Is this the proper exposure?” “Will the processing ruin my exposure?” “Will dust ruin the digitization?”

Subsequently; I announce a second renaissance. My process has changed significantly: capture equipment, development, and digitization. After many frustrations, I’ve found some pleasing results. Perhaps my process will reintroduce the ultimate analog: printing.