I went to a medical fetish party last weekend in NYC and took 13 rolls of film (how I love when I can actually touch a picture) I did most of it without a flash in low light, and got a pretty good return. Some  of the pics are in my portfolio, I have about 50 more. If  your  interested in seeing more  let me know.

PJ style is kind of cool. Why are using film? Your B+W sucks, did you do it because you loved the image and the color sucked worse? Buy a fast lens and learn how to focus the thing wide open.

Hah, thanks pal. Now first off what is PJ? Second film is what everyone should use, it's real, organic physical matter, that makes the best looking images. Digital is this fake 1's and 0's shit that when you look at it you react differently regardless of the content, it's the medium that sends part of the message. Second off all my black and whites are real b+w film, i don't fuck with my images like that in photoshop, it's not real. Third off I like soft images, i've got a 50mm that opens to a 1.4 and I was shooting 800 speed film, and intentially overexposing with slow shutter speeds, it gives it this majestic feel. My pictures are real, they're life, their not these textbook setups with second rate models who can't pose.

yeah i would work on your PJ feel. do something with it, it looks a little "snap shotish." do some different angles, give it a cool twist.

if you hate binary code so much why are you using a computer?

PJ = photojournalistic

I love 'em.  I'd love to see more.

I don't hate  binary it's useful, but i love film, i can see a difference in the response of the image between film and digital, and I like film better because of that. I never said I don't like computers though. I appreciate the tip, I'll work on my "PJ" style. New angles sounds like a good idea, I like trying to keep things fresh... My last reply I just went off a bit cuz I don't like it when assholes that don't take good pictures themselves try and rip on someone else without being constructive. Tear on me all you want, but please be constructive.

Thanks Melvin. Hopefully I'll have an outlet to better display them soon.

Good: The shots are sexy, energetic and fun
Bad: The technical flaws are annoying/frustrating. 

This technique might work in a "Lomogaphy" style of approach, but even then your colors should be dreamier and you'd need less light blow outs.   For me I'd prefer to actually see things well.   Thats why in terms of lo-fi photography I prefer people like Juliana beasley, and Jeurgen Teller who don't use the technical cliche's of photography per se, yet are technically aware enough to maintain clarity/detail.

First.
Guy in Pennsylvania.
The shit's cool, and I'm just stoked you're shooting film.
Because film kicks ass.
And it tastes good.
Seriously...
Lick it...
It tastes good.
And it smells good.
So let these no-physical-reality whiners whine.
It's what they do.
Film is fucking great.
And motion blur is great.
Telling a story beyond "technical proficiency" is far more important.
Content, not technique.
Because you could teach a monkey technique.
But content takes some effort.
And don't listen to people who light competently but then turn their models into plastic in post.
Because Juergen Teller doesn't give a fuck about technique.  The only thing he has going is content... sorry, Nello.  Look a little closer.  His tech sucks ass.  His clarity/detail suck.  He's one of my favoritve photographers... but his tech is shit.
That's probably why I dig him.

Nello Thank you for that reply, I found it very enlightening. For however I don't find the lack of detail disturbing, I find it disturbing when a flash is used in a setting like mine were taken. It completly  disconnects the viewer of the photograph from what that moment was really like. To me that night was a blur and I'm sure everyone else there would say the same. It had these  great sexy moments  but they all melded together, and I think it would have been a diservice to provide anything but an accurate and extravagant representation of the night. I esspecially thank you for bringing up Lomography, I have never  heard of it before, and have now done some research. It interests me very much. I think i'll be getting a lomo kompakt soon.

Mr. Blacklight, I'm glad someone can see what I was doing and appreciates film the way I do. Today I licked on a roll of kodak like a lollipop, and damn if it didn't taste like candy. I love film, I hope I can keep up the finances enough to keep shooting it forever...I've  been looking up Teller, I dig the style, it's  so free  and real, I can see why he's  one of your favorites.

Life is imperfection.

Overall, I like your photos. They're gritty and they tell a story. I can also feel what you're trying to do and I think in many of them it works. I especially like the "Money Talks" photo and the "Unknown Wanderer (I hope I remembered the names right)." I think those two are very successfull and put the viewer in the scene, so to speak. I've photographed in low light, and I've captured some rather amazing movement - blurry and sometimes abstract. What I feel is a successfull "blurry" photo is if something is still in focus and sharp; that way you know the photo was intended that way and the blur wasn't caused by camera shake or some other bad photo technique. For instance, when I shoot bands I don't use a flash (I totally agree with you on that point) and shoot at ISO 800 equilivant (yeah, I shoot digital). I've had many where the performers are blurry and are obviously moving, but the stage is in sharp focus. They have a real sense of movement, and you know as the viewer that it is in fact movement and not camera shake; the in-focus stuff sort of grounds the image so to speak. I also liked one of the party photos in particular, but I can't recall the name. The girl's eyes were in focus, but there was a lot of movement around her. Again, a very successfull photo in my opinion. And no, your B&W photos don't suck. I think some of them could use some more contrast as they appear flat, but that's something that can be done in the darkroom.

   Not to start a film vrs. digital threadjack, but I feel the need to respond to this. I shoot digital, and I've actually been relatively happy with it. Granted, there's things I would never use digital for, such as infrared, but for the most part I feel it does a very good job. I also don't find fault with using Photoshop, as many of the things I do in Photoshop I did in my darkroom with with film before I ever had Photoshop. In my opinion, both are valid mediums for capturing images and both have their advantages and disadvantages. I too am a big fan of film and I hope it never goes away; I just can't really afford to shoot it at the moment (and I no longer have my darkroom). And I do like the conveniance of digital and the lack of chemicals required to "process" my RAW files (although I do like the smell of stop... what can I say?). At some point I'll rebuild my darkroom and shoot both, but for the time being I'm a digital guy. But again, they are just differant mediums for capturing an image. Both are valid, and both have a place in the world of photography, both commercially and artistically. I can just imagine what the portrait painters thought of photography when it became well known in the mid 19th century.

   I look forward to seeing more of your work. I admire your ability to capture a moment and tell a story at the same time. That's something I've not been very successfull at doing, and I admire those that have that talent.

   -Pat-

Hey Pat, thanks for the kind words. I like your definition of a successful blurry photograph, I'll think about that the next time I shoot. Glad to hear that you also don't like flash, I find it very amatuer unless done well. I think it takes much more talent to successfully shoot in natural light, than just snap away knowing that every exposure is going to be perfect. Digital definitely comes down to one color "green." I think I may be buying a digital soon. D70 I think. Side topic: Do you know if an old nikkor lens from the 70's  would fit onto the D70? I can't keep spending money the way I do on film esspecially if I'm not making any money from it. I'lll work on that contrast of the b/w's and see what I can make of them. I hope my photographs keep getting grittier and deeper with character and story. I've only recently begun capturing moments well. I find it's very much about being in the moment yourself. All of my club shots I took in a lets say euphoric state. It gives a new perspective on things. And in that environment connects you to the people. Every situation is different though, but jjust try and be part of the moment and be patient, like a wildlife photography waiting to click one shot of a rare bird that leaves its nest for only moments each year. Be alert and prepared and be real.

Thanks for the comments