tell me more about your photo stuff

I've seen a few of our photos but know nothing about who you work for or what website you do or whether you're a pro or anything

i don't have a real website. for a lot of reasons, the least of which is financial. anyway, thanks for asking. my myspace has some images and info, etc.

http://www.myspace.com/wadegosselinphotography

sick guns

so I'm inferring...

you do this semi-professionally, you really like shooting The Heuristic and may be friends with them...

anything else you can add?

the pics look great

yes, the Heuristic are indeed friends and I've happened to do a fair amount of work with them lately that I'm happy with, that's why there's a comparative deluge of pics of that band on the page.

the short version is this:

I'm nearly 30 & go to less and less shows because I have a family to help support. Even if there's a chance that something will pay off artistically or financially, I often miss great shows or ones I am asked to try and make. It sucks but I shoot a lot of film still because I think it's superior to the digital technology within not only my camera bag but the stuff I could theoretically afford. It's also expensive as fuck. I just like the tonal range and "feel" of film better and if I'm going to a show, I want images I'm 100% happy with. Not that digital's all bad, you guys see what Aaron does with digi and some of what's on my myspace page was shot digitally.

that's all I'll say openly in a forum. anything beyond that sounds too much like selling myself, not that I haven't done that before but..

wade is for sale? check out metal maniacs. I've been tring to get him to get a site for a while, but he keeps telling me the internet doesn't exist anymore. and then calls me a hippie.

I want to watch Easy Rider now.

just to see Jack Nicholson get beat to death.

I heard the reason Lara Flynn Boyle wore that tutu to some awards show was because she caught Jack fucking a ballerina (go dude!).

the_reverend said:

i also write horribly for them. don't know why i even do it. I'm slow, it occupies WAY too much headspace and it pays..eh..but anyway, time to start that Frightmare piece.

I think that digital works out to be more economical than analog, especially if you're taking a lot of photos. Although the cameras are pretty expensive, you don't have to buy film or pay for development afterwards. Of course, you're right that there's a difference, and you just can't put a price on art.

davefromthegrave said:

shit yeah, money-wise, digital cannot be touched. If I had a film scanner, I'd be in much better shape. but I want a really good one so that's a ways away.