when testing a new camera or technique, i find it really helpful to shoot the same things to provide a point of comparison. bracketing off the fact that lighting conditions, angle of the shot, overall composition, etc. contribute to the overall impact of the shot, it would be helpful to be able to review the difference between using this or that camera, this or that technique.
so. . .if i regret not having established and maintained a specific flickr habit or organizational/learning routine, it is this: inspired by this publication (originally published in 1978), i wish i had created sets named after the things i take pictures of when trying something new. (as it is, most of my sets are named after the camera or technique--holga, diana, diana pinhole, zorki, redscale, color developed as b/w, etc.)
i might have created instead (or as well) a set for the rusted-out tricycle, one for the bench in the woods, one for the kitchen table, etc. in this way, the bike set would have contained images of the tricyle taken with the flipped lens bhf, ikoflex, holga, and so on. i had thought briefly about doing this when i started shooting film (as this gave me a point of comparison between digital and film) but i never committed to it mainly because i kept thinking (after acquirng each new camera) "okay, this is it. i will stop testing new cameras now." 20 or 30 cameras and techniques later, ah well. i do consider, every now and then, taking the time to go back through the test rolls and creating these sets but it seems like soooo much work. in short, i really regret not doing this when i got the holga.
so, in the spirit of attempting to do this now (at least with pinhole comparisons), here are study shots--the first two were taken with my matchbook pinhole (with two different pinhole sizes) and the final image was taken with the zero image pinhole.