New batch of false colour "infrared" film

[AgX]

This film technically belongs to a group called "false-colour films".

[sehrgut]

Lomography seems to sell on the basis of getting wacky, random results with the 'photographer' having little control or idea what he or she will get until the snaps arrive.

It's very Dada-does-photography.

[steven_e007]

Misrepresenting?

It could be said similarly that single-use, Polaroid, or 126-cartridge cameras "misrepresented" film photography

"Film photography" is not monolithic.

Misrepresenting In the sense that if you had no prior knowledge of film - if your experience of photography was purely digital, then when you discover Lomography you might well get the impression that film is some sort of primitive and quaint way of producing blurred pictures with odd or over saturated colours. Maybe misrepresenting isn't the best word to pick, but a Lomo fan could easily get the impression that digital is for serious, well exposed, properly focused photography - whereas film is fun because it is so unpredictably bizarre...

I think 126 was a way to get your holiday snap taking device small enough to fit into the pocket of your shorts.... and disposables so you don't have to worry about them getting broken or stolen, you can hand them out at weddings and parties, but I don't think many people bought them to deliberately produce pictures that looked weird or strange.

[SuzanneR]

I've changed the thread title so that it more accurately represents what type of film this is.

[Prof_Pixel]

... or 126-cartridge cameras "misrepresented" film photography

The 126 format was probably the most successful format Kodak introduced. It solved a real consumer FILM camera issue; the difficulty in loading cameras (35mm in particular). I worked in a camera strore for several years before 126 came out and people really did have a problem loading cameras.

It certainly DIDN'T ""misrepresented" film photography".

[pdeeh]

a Lomo fan could easily get the impression that digital is for serious, well exposed, properly focused photography - whereas film is fun because it is so unpredictably bizarre...

I really think it's wrong-headed to assume that "Lomo fans" are all somehow learning-disabled and unable to look further than what lomography.com tells them. If they have any curiosity at all, they'll be googling film-related terms and subjects and APUG or RFF or photo.net results will be at or near the top. So they can find out what other kinds of photography is being done (and of course they'll also find they are derided as "hipsters" and dupes of lomography.com)

I have no interest in doing "lomography", by the way, nor do I own any "lomo" cameras.

But this is taking the thread way off topic so I'll clamber off my current hobby-horse and shut up

It certainly DIDN'T ""misrepresented" film photography".

And I didn't say it did. I suggested that was a possible corollary of suggesting "Lomo misrepresents film photography".
I used a lot of 126 cassettes in my teens in the 1970s. I've recently scanned about 200 of them in fact

[Brian C. Miller]

I'll definitely order some when I can. This looks like a very interesting film! Too bad it's not real IR, but what the hey.

[desertratt]

So many people take to these threads to bemoan everything that is no longer available -- Kodachrome, Panatomic-X, high button shoes and cars with running boards. So somebody comes out with something new and everybody mostly pans it. Heck, maybe you can load a roll, stick a filter or two on the front of thecamera and make it come out like Kodachrome. Ya never know till you try.

[keyofnight]

I could see why someone would say that Lomo "misrepresents film photography," but I can also see why it doesn't. When I was growing up, I heard about technical advances in film: smaller/smoother grain, more accurate colors, cheaper, easier to use, etc. It was all about making film good at rendering sharp, vibrant images. Now some people want inaccurate colors, lots of grain, and they'll pay a premium for the look/style they want. Also, some people really value not being able to see the picture immediately—they like not being able to "chimp." We all, however, remember being excited about Polaroid film because it was instant! We all remember one-hour photo labs and wanted our pictures quickly. Why do we want to back to the stone ages? Nostalgia is certainly a big part of it, and trendiness is certainly another part of it.

Lomography (I think) cashes in on nostalgia, uses it to keep film alive. That's fine. Some of us may not like the hipster lomo sheik, but we should be happy people are interested in film and want to keep it alive!

I'll probably buy some Purple just for the cause.

[C.poulton]

Whatever people's thoughts are on this - good or bad, at least it's a new film being introduced into the market and this must be a good thing overall.

I might try some just for a bit of fun - why not?


Christian