Adventures in Hair Color...
Jun. 13th, 2005 05:47 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
perzephone
I was right. I got a brunette dye that was supposed to strip out dark hair colors... So what did it do? It bleached my roots to a really attractive (insert sarcasm) pinkish color, and the rest of my hair is still... black. I should have just bought the black dye, smothered myself in vaseline & dyed my roots black again. I've just gotten tired of the color I guess. And it's a pain in the ass to keep it off my skin & to keep the bathtub relatively dye-stain free. My only vanity - covering up those silver hairs.
Watched 'Suspect O' last night (well, earlier this morning for me). It was pretty decent. Remote viewing & serial killers - two of my favorite subjects. Serial killer movies are about the only scary movies I can watch anymore, mainly because I am too fat to be attractive to serial killers. Even this bumper sticker I have seems to sum it up: 'Fat people are harder to kidnap.' So I can watch a serial killer movie & think to myself, with conviction, 'That could never happen to me.' Unlike movies involving haunted houses & various other bogeys & things that go bump in the night.
When all my friends were experimenting w/marijuana & LSD, I was experimenting w/psychic phenomenon & only playing w/drugs to attain altered states of consciousness & perception. Remote viewing, cloud busting, Kirlian photography, hands-on healing... Tarot, crystal balls, mojo bags. All those things that tied in w/my faith, which was considerably stronger when I was a teenager than now.
Thought about if I decided to actually compile & organize my herb notes into a publishable format. But if I was to do that, I'd want it to have pictures. But I'd want to have the copyright on the photos & not have to pay royalties to a stock photo company or hire a photographer to do it. So, that means taking the photos myself. I am a sucky photographer, but if I'm just taking pictures of plants & plant parts, at least my subject isn't roaming around or blinking. So, I started thinking about it: which is better, a digital camera, or a high-tech 35mm w/a bunch of lenses for extreme close-up work? I personally have no idea, so I wrote The Hula Rat a letter & asked her. She is a photographer, after all. So I just have to mail the letter & await her eventual reply. I've been waiting for her letter for a good six months already, another six shouldn't matter too much. The obvious benefit to a digital camera is that you don't have to pay for processing, or pay for film. But I would have to get extra memory chips. I also don't like digital photography myself - it always looks fuzzy, the colors seem off & the enlarged photos are pixelated. 35mm looks so much sharper to me, and the colors are true-to-life. But I'd need a decent to good camera, not my cheapie little Walgreens p.o.s. camera. I'd need something that I can bring into focus.
Watched 'Suspect O' last night (well, earlier this morning for me). It was pretty decent. Remote viewing & serial killers - two of my favorite subjects. Serial killer movies are about the only scary movies I can watch anymore, mainly because I am too fat to be attractive to serial killers. Even this bumper sticker I have seems to sum it up: 'Fat people are harder to kidnap.' So I can watch a serial killer movie & think to myself, with conviction, 'That could never happen to me.' Unlike movies involving haunted houses & various other bogeys & things that go bump in the night.
When all my friends were experimenting w/marijuana & LSD, I was experimenting w/psychic phenomenon & only playing w/drugs to attain altered states of consciousness & perception. Remote viewing, cloud busting, Kirlian photography, hands-on healing... Tarot, crystal balls, mojo bags. All those things that tied in w/my faith, which was considerably stronger when I was a teenager than now.
Thought about if I decided to actually compile & organize my herb notes into a publishable format. But if I was to do that, I'd want it to have pictures. But I'd want to have the copyright on the photos & not have to pay royalties to a stock photo company or hire a photographer to do it. So, that means taking the photos myself. I am a sucky photographer, but if I'm just taking pictures of plants & plant parts, at least my subject isn't roaming around or blinking. So, I started thinking about it: which is better, a digital camera, or a high-tech 35mm w/a bunch of lenses for extreme close-up work? I personally have no idea, so I wrote The Hula Rat a letter & asked her. She is a photographer, after all. So I just have to mail the letter & await her eventual reply. I've been waiting for her letter for a good six months already, another six shouldn't matter too much. The obvious benefit to a digital camera is that you don't have to pay for processing, or pay for film. But I would have to get extra memory chips. I also don't like digital photography myself - it always looks fuzzy, the colors seem off & the enlarged photos are pixelated. 35mm looks so much sharper to me, and the colors are true-to-life. But I'd need a decent to good camera, not my cheapie little Walgreens p.o.s. camera. I'd need something that I can bring into focus.
