a few beginner questions about film

[compur]

Nothing wrong with APUG. Lots of good info there. I just haven't visited there in a long time. No particular reason.

 

[cgw]

ONE photo is proof? There are tens of thousands of "lomo" scans on the Internet. How is it possible to say MOST of them have boosted contrast because of digital manipulation post-scan? What about cross-processing effects? Wasn't that the whole point of cross-processing, to get funky colors.

To be clear: I don't give a crap if they are boosted digitally or not. I also believe that many of them are. But it just seems disingenuous to state - without demonstrable proof - that MOST pictures are digitally altered.

We both know that x-pro is the antithesis of consistency. Lomo stuff printed SOOC from film often doesn't look much like Lomo stuff posted online. The scope for post massaging is huge, given the fact that all we look at here is digitized. I rest my case. And pin the the disingenuity tail elsewhere, SVP?

Restatement does not mean proof.

Jeesh, they're scanned, OK? Heard a few too many customers of the late Toronto Lomography store kvetch at a nearby pro lab that Lomo film just didn't scan/print much like the stuff they'd seen online. Why? You fill in the rest.

 

[limr]

We both know that x-pro is the antithesis of consistency. Lomo stuff printed SOOC from film often doesn't look much like Lomo stuff posted online. The scope for post massaging is huge, given the fact that all we look at here is digitized. I rest my case. And pin the the disingenuity tail elsewhere, SVP?

Restatement does not mean proof.

Jeesh, they're scanned, OK? Heard a few too many customers of the late Toronto Lomography store kvetch at a nearby pro lab that Lomo film just didn't scan/print much like the stuff they'd seen online. Why? You fill in the rest.

Yes, jumping to conclusions would necessarily require the other person to fill in the gaping holes in an argument. You're clearly comfortable with your generalization, so whatever small interest I had in this topic is totally gone. There's just no point.

 

[minicoop1985]

I think I need a bloody mary after this thread. lol

 

[limr]

I think I need a bloody mary after this thread. lol

Those can be tasty. A bad one, though, is horrifying.

 

[compur]

I'll have a nice Chianti.

 

[limr]

I just had a Shock Top.

 

[minicoop1985]

Hmm. Maybe I'll have one of these instead:

Snapshot - New Belgium Brewing

Awww yisss

 

[AlanKlein]

Lomo photography is all about what would normally be considered poor image quality. That is, images made with cheap, poor quality lenses and crude cameras. Their films tend to share this idea and are, frankly, the worst quality (by normal standards of image quality) that the Lomo people can find for use in their cameras. The Lomo idea is to distort reality via grain, color shifts, etc. rather than to duplicate reality as is normally done with conventional photographic standards.

35mm films marked "36-exposure" means 36 per role.


BTW, I don't mean to knock "toy camera" photography which I do believe is a valid form of art. However, I'm not crazy about the way the Lomo people exploit it.

A well put opinion! I personally prefer that grainy, etc. look but it can get a bit extreme, I like it subtle. This applies when I'm talking more about personal, everyday photographs. I explained all of this more in my other thread in which I was looking for a camera.

What kind of camera do you have?

Minolta SR-1 50mm f/1.7

A Minolta SR-1 with a 50mm f/1.7 lens is a fine camera. It will take professional photos. I'd practice with non-expired film of good quality until you get more experience. You have plenty of time to get fancy with graininess. Anyway, if you plan on scanning them for posting on the web or printing digitally, you can always add grain in post processing. But in the meanwhile, you'll have better photographs with good color because you're using good film. Good luck with whatever you decide to do and have fun.

 

[dav305z]

I think Kodak Gold, more than Fuji Superia, has that subtle, warm quality that makes people instantly look at it and say, "You still shoot film? Cool!"

 

[webestang64]

1. So can I get Kodak or Fuji instead of lomography if I was trying to go for similar results as the photos I saw and liked?
..........I mainly shoot Fuji 400......but Kodak is as good or better. I get "you still shoot film" from both.

2. I saw there's Kodak gold ULTRAMAX, Kodak Gold MAX, Kodak Royal? What's the difference?
.........not much, it's Kodak's way of marketing with fancy words. From what I've seen Royal is the best-ish. Every time they change or enhance the emulsion they rename the film.

3. On the lomography box (3 rolls) it says 36 exp, does that mean per roll or per box?
............I believe so, I never buy from there since I work in a camera store.......

I say buy a roll of each of Kodak and Fuji, shoot away and compare.