a few beginner questions about film

[limr]

Sorry but many "Lomo" shots posted online are not SOOC scans but rather manipulated to boost contrast/saturation/hue. It was part of the Lomo con and probably helps explain why their stores mostly vanished in N. America.

Proof?

 

[minicoop1985]

Most "Lomography" shots have the saturation boosted to the max, which seems to add to the grainy look. They don't look like that SOOC, as CGW said, but more like what you find in my above examples. The colors are just kinda flat, really, even on a bright, sunny day. Shadow contrast just looks weird and oddly colored.

 

[cgw]

Sorry but many "Lomo" shots posted online are not SOOC scans but rather manipulated to boost contrast/saturation/hue. It was part of the Lomo con and probably helps explain why their stores mostly vanished in N. America.

Proof?

Think you provided some. Your shot looks quite SOOC compared to the Pokemon-hued stuff touted online.

 

[minicoop1985]

Actually, this would be a good example. There's no chance this saturation came out of Lomo 100. While Lomo 100 is grainy, I have a feeling that the extra grain seen here is from boosting saturation with the scanning software. My Epson Scan stuff seems to do that.

A photo by ?scootiepye? - Lomography

I mean maybe the 35mm stuff is different, but still.

 

[compur]

One thing is sure: There are no film photographs on the internet.

 

[cgw]

One thing is sure: There are no film photographs on the internet.

And yet there's apug.org where film photographs(sic) amazingly appear online and where the word "scanner" is blasphemy. A strange world, indeed.

 

[limr]

Sorry but many "Lomo" shots posted online are not SOOC scans but rather manipulated to boost contrast/saturation/hue. It was part of the Lomo con and probably helps explain why their stores mostly vanished in N. America.

Proof?

Think you provided some. Your shot looks quite SOOC compared to the Pokemon-hued stuff touted online.

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.

 

[compur]

One thing is sure: There are no film photographs on the internet.

And yet there's apug.org where film photographs(sic) amazingly appear online and where the word "scanner" is blasphemy. A strange world, indeed.

Stranger still are your posts which always seem to miss the point.

 

[cgw]

One thing is sure: There are no film photographs on the internet.

And yet there's apug.org where film photographs(sic) amazingly appear online and where the word "scanner" is blasphemy. A strange world, indeed.

Stranger still are your posts which always seem to miss the point.

Oh, there's was point to your post? Seemed like the same old apug-like crankiness.

 

[compur]

^ Yes, there was a point to my post but I am filled with too much apug-like crankiness to explain it to you.

 

[cgw]

Proof?

Think you provided some. Your shot looks quite SOOC compared to the Pokemon-hued stuff touted online.

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?

 

[cgw]

Oh, there's was point to your post?

Yes, but I am filled with too much apug-like crankiness to explain it to you.

Best save your strength for the deep truths pondered over there.

 

[compur]

I rarely visit that forum and my strengths are in no need of saving, thank you.

BTW, have you figured out the point of my post yet? It seems Derrel has.

 

[limr]

Think you provided some. Your shot looks quite SOOC compared to the Pokemon-hued stuff touted online.

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.

 

[Mike_E]

I enjoy APUG along with a few other sites, including this one.

The thing is I like hammers AND wrenches.





And sometimes a screwdriver after a long day.