call for photographers - no competition - new online analogue photography website

[onemonthoneroll.com]

Hey fellow photographers...

we're running an analogue photography website - www.onemonthoneroll.com - and looking to get some hype and new photographers. here's some info:

onemonthoneroll.com was founded in July 2010 as a place where amateur and professional photographers could retreat from the digital din, and embrace their inner analogue.

The premise is simple: shoot a roll of film one month, and post the results the next.

If digital was a revolution, then a return to analogue is the response. onemonthoneroll.com encourages analogue reactionaries to reclaim value in photography and reject digital excess – one roll at a time.

We're looking for new photographers - if you're interested, apply here:

Dead Link Removed

kind regards

Mat and James

 

[George Collier]

Mat and James - link doesn't work. See message attached.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Go to the front page:

Dead Link Removed

And click "Apply"

 

[pinhole_dreamer]

Heh. I shoot about 5-8 rolls a month.

 

[onemonthoneroll.com]

yeah, the site had a makeover - hit this:

Dead Link Removed

or do what rich says.

paz

mat and james

 

[SMBooth]

You have no pinhole section

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

You have no pinhole section

Boots, your pinhole pix have the sublime compositional — and especially, aesthetic qualities of an astigmatic Hasselblad: load up a roll of 120/220, shoot the pinhole and cause a stir. 99.90% chance they'll look better than ... an astigmatic Hasselblad.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Mat and James, how long does acceptance of registration take? Submitted mine last night....

 

[artonpaper]

A roll a month and posting the results sounds to much like a digital work flow. So you either got to print a whole mess of pictures and then scan them, or you got to scan a whole mess of negatives. Sounds quantity driven, IMHO.

 

[onemonthoneroll.com]

Hey Rich - Mat 'the fixer' is beavering away with a bunch of applications. Hopefully soon...

james

 

[onemonthoneroll.com]

Hey artonpaper - quantity always equals quality! we're all about giving people who may not carry a camera around everyday an excuse to shoot...

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

In my eyes, it would seem a simple enough task to shoot say one 120 roll on 6x17 a month (that's four images), scan and submit. No sweat about that. Or, say 6x6 pinhole pix (e.g. 12 per 120 roll). Others though shooting 35mm would have a darned lot of scanning to do and it's not really economical in terms of time (unless of course somebody is paying you for it!). Analog-to-digital is what scanning your negs/trannies/plates is about — no escaping that. Got to jump on the wagon eventually!

 

[marco.taje]

quantity always equals quality!

A-hem. :confused:

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Hey artonpaper - quantity always equals quality![...]

Faux pas No. 1. No, it does not.
Why did you take a maxim (Quality, not Quantity) and wantonly disparage the truth is espouses? Your priority should be quality images from quality photographers, not lousy paste-ins like what is daily dumped into Flickr as bland, unserviceable and largely mediocre servings that pass as "photography". I'd sooner visit a website that has been carefully designed with an eye for quality and to hell with how many or how few photographs are there — so long as my viewing time isn't wasted.

 

[Yamaotoko]

Faux pas No. 1. No, it does not.
Why did you take a maxim (Quality, not Quantity) and wantonly disparage the truth is espouses? Your priority should be quality images from quality photographers, not lousy paste-ins like what is daily dumped into Flickr as bland, unserviceable and largely mediocre servings that pass as "photography". I'd sooner visit a website that has been carefully designed with an eye for quality and to hell with how many or how few photographs are there — so long as my viewing time isn't wasted.

+1

 

[onemonthoneroll.com]

Faux pas No. 1. No, it does not.
Why did you take a maxim (Quality, not Quantity) and wantonly disparage the truth is espouses? Your priority should be quality images from quality photographers, not lousy paste-ins like what is daily dumped into Flickr as bland, unserviceable and largely mediocre servings that pass as "photography". I'd sooner visit a website that has been carefully designed with an eye for quality and to hell with how many or how few photographs are there — so long as my viewing time isn't wasted.

We don't think quantity and quality are mutually exclusive. Out of quantity comes quality. We're about getting people shooting regularly. When one's eye is calibrated photographically, thinking photographically, when one is shooting, practicing, honing their craft, quality will ensue - quality is a means or a process, not so much an end. We don't want to upset your viewing time, fish of the day...

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Not to heap on but the quantity-quality remark caught me as odd as well.

Good luck with the site.

 

[hoffy]

Meh....at least these guys are doing their bit. Not everything has to be about 'Fine Art'.

Sure, why not!

 

[mono]

Sorry,
the image material is IMHO just mediocre.
I won´t visit the site again!

 

[hoffy]

How in the heck is this kind of comment helpful? They could simply not post anything, not set up their website, not bother promoting the use of film, but they did. This snobbery about the apparent snap shot nature of some of the photos is not helpful at all and is not helpful for the film photography cause…..but then again, I am sure people will consider it "hybrid" anyway and not pure….

No, I am not involved with them at all, but I have asked if I could join

And yes, I don't get the Quantity = quality comment, but hey, they are doing their bit

 

[munz6869]

Yes, saying "quantity equals quality" to a Large Format photographer (for example), may make their head explode! But nonetheless, I concur with Hoffy, and wish any endeavour that gets people enthused about the craft of film photography, the best of luck!!

Marc!

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

In my 32 years as a photographer I find the more I shoot the better I get.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

In my 32 years as a photographer I find the more I shoot the better I get.