How to get 120 photos taken on a Diana to look correct!?

[alisonmyates]

I have been taking a lot of photos on a Diana F+ Clone using color 120 film. I've been using the 12 shot (5.2x5.2) setting when shooting all my rolls. I recently submitted my film to a online printing house and the photos that I received looked like this.

All the images were small with obvious breaks between each image but they printed out like this. I was told by the technician that this is because the Diana format doesn't fit with the standard 6x6 frame. Yet, I see all of these beautiful examples of people who have recently taken photos with the Diana and they look like this: Diana F+ Medium Format Camera ? Microsite Lomography ? GALLERIES ? Diana F+
View attachment 69687

Obvious difference! So what am I doing wrong? Does anyone know how I can get photographs from this camera that look like the beautiful examples? I mean there must be a way since plenty of people have the correct looking images. I appreciate any help or advice I can get!

 

[limr]

An online printing house?

I don't know much about the Diana F+ but if the format is really is 5.2x5.2 then yes, it's smaller than the traditional 6x6 format. What did you get back - a contact sheet or separate prints? And where did you see these other 'beautiful prints'? Were they internet images? Because if they were, it's entirely possible they were cropped, so who knows what they originally looked at.

Also, if you don't want those backing paper marks on your shots, I would avoid buying Lomo film. They don't make their own film, but just repackage other films, generally lower quality film or old emulsions. I've seen those backing paper marks on both color and black and white, and from what I understand, it's probably rebranded Shanghai film.

 

[alisonmyates]

Yes, I had them developed by darkroom.com. I got back the negatives, a contact sheet and the actual prints. I have seen many examples of nice looking diana-shot photo prints on the internet, but I also have a book of them called "Diana F+: More True Tales and Short Stories." Which is a compilation of recent Diana F+ photos. You can see examples here.

I just had a reply from darkroom.com: "as they are a non standard format and have to be manually scanned. All Diana negatives are unequally spaced and will have black borders. We would have to zoom in on each image to get rid of seeing the other adjacent frames/black borders. When you zoom in your image will be slightly cropped and this is very time consuming, as it is already time consuming to manually scan film too. I would suggest not ordering prints and just getting Scans (Enhanced would be the better option) and then when you receive your scans you can always crop the image and upload them to your online album and order prints from there."

So, I suppose this is the answer - to just order scans and crop them down myself before ordering prints. It just seems odd that there's no way to easily print these photos - since nice printing does seem to exist, but I guess that's the price you pay for using a vintage toy camera. And perhaps all the prints I see that I like were done by hand by a professional photographer, which I certainly am not.

Thanks for your advice about the lomography film, it makes sense and is much appreciated.

 

[limr]

That response makes sense. There is no way for automated printing to easily deal with non-standard sizes and inconsistent spacing between frames - it requires a human being, and these folks are dealing with volume, so it's too labor intensive to do such editing work on each frame.

These are certainly the perils of the toy camera! I would take their suggestion and don't order prints - just the scans. That way you can crop and edit yourself anyway you want. You can download Gimp, which is a free and very good photo editing suite, like Photoshop. Then if you do find something you want a print of, you can send the negative to places that print. Not sure if darkroom.com does custom prints like that, but adoramapix.com does a nice job and prints aren't that expensive.

Plastic Lomo toy cameras can be fun, just as long as it's understood that they are limited. There's not much to control on the camera, so the best thing to do to make the most out of it is to figure out under what conditions the camera performs best and take pictures in those situations. I have fun with my Holga, but I know I can't use it the same way I can use a fully manual camera.

The Lomo film can be fine, but it's hit or miss, and I don't think it's that great of a deal in terms of price, either.

Have fun! Show us some pictures!

 

[alisonmyates]

Thanks for your help and advice!

 

[cgw]

With respect, don't take the shots on the Diana F or other toy camera sites as SOOC neg scans. They've been heavily massaged in editing programs to produce that look. Hybrid workflow allows you huge creative scope. Experiment with fresh, quality 120 films like Ilford XP2(C-41 process b&w) or Kodak Portra 400. Both have huge latitude that provides a baked-in cushion for exposure goofs. Your negs/scans are really just the first step towards getting the look you want.

 

[limr]

It's not really fair to say that they are ALWAYS edited to look the way they do. They might be, of course, but you can't really know for all of them. And even if they are manipulated, it could have been done by cross-processing rather than digital editing post-scan.

I took this with a Holga and didn't do a damn thing to it except clone out a couple of dust spots.

 

[cgw]

It's not really fair to say that the are ALWAYS edited to look the way they do. They might be, of course, but you can't really know for all of them. And even if they are manipulated, it could have been done by cross-processing rather than digital editing post-scan.

I took this with a Holga and didn't do a damn thing to it except clone out a couple of dust spots.

Sorry but most aren't SOOC. Xpro is too unpredictable to yield the sort of consistency I see on many of the toy sites. That's what put many would-be Lomographers off: the inability to get the kind of results the Lomography stores promised with their cameras and film. Might also partially explain why nearly all their N. American stores are kaput now.

 

[limr]

I absolutely agree that many pictures get edited. Many. Not all. Who knows if it's "most" or not. But it IS possible to get those funky Lomo results without post-processing, and that requires knowing how to use the equipment to the best of its capabilities. I think that is really the thing that trips wannabe lomographers: too much faith in the camera doing all the work and not enough awareness that THEY have to bring the picture out of the camera, not the other way around.

 

[cgw]

I absolutely agree that many pictures get edited. Many. Not all. Who knows if it's "most" or not. But it IS possible to get those funky Lomo results without post-processing, and that requires knowing how to use the equipment to the best of its capabilities. I think that is really the thing that trips wannabe lomographers: too much faith in the camera doing all the work and not enough awareness that THEY have to bring the picture out of the camera, not the other way around.

Amen. I think the OP needs to be down with this before proceeding and/or getting more frustrated with their results so far. Heard staff at the late Lomography store in Toronto utterly mislead customers on what their cameras and film produce. Xpro consistency(oxymoron?)really only results from careful metering, contrast measurement, and understanding of how a particular material responds to overexposure in, say C-41, chemistry.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I think that looks like some bad film. And maybe the exposure was off? or the wrong speed film was used for the existing light? looks pretty dark and grainy. I've gotten results similar to Leonore's, about the same you'd get with a midcentury plastic/bakelite viewfinder or vest pocket; obviously not what you get using an SLR or rangefinder and a nice sharp lens, so I agree it's a matter of learning how to use the camera (what conditions, subject, etc.)

Doesn't that Diana have frames that you can put in or take out thru the back of the camera? I might be getting the Holga and Diana mixed up because I've used mine mostly as is without the frame inserts. On the back of the camera you can set it to either of 2 choices of how many frames/which size frames you want - maybe the OP needs to think about which setting would work better. I've used The Darkroom and not had anything like the OP's results (unless I did some experimenting that went awry...).

 

[webestang64]

Toy camera = crap shoot.........roll the dice, roll the film. Here in St. Louis at the Holga club, they embrace such photos as the OP has shown us.

I myself would rather just shoot with my $1 garage sale Super Ricohflex.

 

[minicoop1985]

I'm not a big fan of toy cameras, but I understand their appeal. I buy quite a few cameras to repair and sell, and you never know what's gonna happen with them once they're fixed.

As for editing, I avoid editing my film stuff as much as possible. 1/100 get edited. There's something honest about film, and I wanna keep it that way. My digital shots get edited 100% of the time though.