Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,301   Posts: 1,536,176   Online: 692
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45
  1. #11
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,531
    This film technically belongs to a group called "false-colour films".
    Last edited by AgX; 01-30-2013 at 04:38 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by steven_e007 View Post
    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.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Shropshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    829
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by pdeeh View Post
    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.
    Steve

  4. #14
    SuzanneR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,731
    Images
    139
    I've changed the thread title so that it more accurately represents what type of film this is.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,020
    Quote Originally Posted by pdeeh View Post
    ... 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".

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,304
    Quote Originally Posted by steven_e007 View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by prof pixel
    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

  7. #17
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    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.

  8. #18
    keyofnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    86
    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.

  9. #19
    C.poulton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    23

    New batch of false colour "infrared" film

    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

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,544
    False colors aren't new.....there were some very bizarre effects filters available at one time from the likes of Hoya and (particularly) Cokin.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin