Author Topic: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm  (Read 4002 times)

windy

  • Sitting on a bog in the North Atlantic
    • My Instagram
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #75 on: March 18, 2018, 10:35:23 pm »

This pic made it into Cycling Weekly



Question.  Was that a "Toy" camera or a contemporary film camera?  The image looks distinctly late 1980s/early 1990s rather than a deliberate "Lomo" image from the 21st century (unless it was a fancy dress event). 
That one was taken from using a Rollei 35B (and Kodachrome) - just replying to ESL post with some of the pics I've had published.

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #76 on: May 16, 2018, 10:00:17 am »
I'm now about 8 shots into a roll of XP2 B&W film on my Balda-Matic.

It's reminded me why I buy Digital cameras. 

1 - You need to be extremely careful what you take photos of, you only have 36 attempts.

2 - I have no idea if I captured a decent image, or ANY image.

3 - I know full well that, even if I captured a great image, it will be no better than if I'd taken it on any of my cameras (or even my phone).

4 - It's bloody expensive.  The film plus high-res scans will cost the same as a 32Gb Sandisk Extreme memory card  (36 images vs 2,000 reusable "image spaces")

I'll stick with it, just this final time, but I truly don't see any advantage in it beyond the novelty...and the novelty has worn off.
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #77 on: May 16, 2018, 10:42:02 pm »
You think that's bad, try large format :)
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #78 on: May 16, 2018, 11:55:02 pm »
You think that's bad, try large format :)

Only if it's large format Polaroid (I'd love to do a few portraits on 8x10 Polaroid*)

*Don't blink because it costs £17 if you blink.
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

Salvatore

  • Джон Спунър
    • Pics
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #79 on: May 17, 2018, 12:02:08 am »
Why not go the whole hog with a 24x20 Polaroid?

https://youtu.be/Qt-NraquF5E

Edit: Why not? Because if the comments are to believed there's no film/developer  left.
Quote
et avec John, excellent lecteur de road-book, on s'en est sortis sans erreur

T42

  • Gaulois réfractaire
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #80 on: May 17, 2018, 08:13:14 am »
I'm now about 8 shots into a roll of XP2 B&W film on my Balda-Matic.

It's reminded me why I buy Digital cameras. 

1 - You need to be extremely careful what you take photos of, you only have 36 attempts.

2 - I have no idea if I captured a decent image, or ANY image.

3 - I know full well that, even if I captured a great image, it will be no better than if I'd taken it on any of my cameras (or even my phone).

4 - It's bloody expensive.  The film plus high-res scans will cost the same as a 32Gb Sandisk Extreme memory card  (36 images vs 2,000 reusable "image spaces")

I'll stick with it, just this final time, but I truly don't see any advantage in it beyond the novelty...and the novelty has worn off.

Last time I tried 35mm, after each shot I would look at the back of the camera and think "WTF?"

BTW, that's apparently how you tell a pro from an amateur. Pros just shoot & shoot, but amateurs shoot & peek.
I dare eat all that may become a man.

But hold the oysters.

Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #81 on: June 02, 2018, 02:59:30 pm »
I love this thread.
As someone who last shot on emulsion film on 24.10.2003 when the last three Concords flew in to Heathrow, and having in the last couple of days unearthed (from the cupboard under my stairs) my Dad's Yaschica rangefinder and a Praktika SLR - which has 'Harrow School of Photography' engraved onto the prism housing (I have honestly no idea how or why I'm in possession of that SLR).
Lee's analogy of wrapping a smartphone in some clingfilm made me smile.

Meanwhile...

Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #82 on: June 04, 2018, 01:36:26 pm »
I'm now about 8 shots into a roll of XP2 B&W film on my Balda-Matic.

It's reminded me why I buy Digital cameras. 

1 - You need to be extremely careful what you take photos of, you only have 36 attempts.

2 - I have no idea if I captured a decent image, or ANY image.

3 - I know full well that, even if I captured a great image, it will be no better than if I'd taken it on any of my cameras (or even my phone).

4 - It's bloody expensive.  The film plus high-res scans will cost the same as a 32Gb Sandisk Extreme memory card  (36 images vs 2,000 reusable "image spaces")

I'll stick with it, just this final time, but I truly don't see any advantage in it beyond the novelty...and the novelty has worn off.


But it will also be no worse.


ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #83 on: June 04, 2018, 09:04:17 pm »
Just found two SLRs in by old camera bag,  a practika BX20 sans lense and my first self winder a canon EOS 3000 with 28-80mm lens. The latter was quite capable for close ups.
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens

Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #84 on: June 07, 2018, 03:59:10 pm »


I'll stick with it, just this final time, but I truly don't see any advantage in it beyond the novelty...and the novelty has worn off.

I find that switching modes revitalises my photography. Be it  digital to film, 35mm to 120, fixed lens to zoom,  P&S to (D)SLR. You might call it novelty, but I disagree. I think that the different way you think about the shot changes the way you think about and take the photograph, and the effect lingers beyond the "novelty" period.

Gattopardo

  • Lord of the sith
  • Overseaing the building of the death star
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #85 on: October 06, 2018, 11:03:08 am »
Just remembered that I have a 35mm lomo, 120 lomo, a french boxcamera and an om10.  None of which I have run a full roll of film through.

Trying to reason why I have them.