It matters. If the film is divided with pre-exposed boundaries that means that the already tiny market for 127 film is to be divided according to the camera you own. You have to buy 127 "for the square format 13x13" or 127 "for the standard format 13x17". And if you own a 127 camera which uses the 13x19 format, you have to find yet another different film. All this really is industrially insane.
Since roll film was invented the sensitive surface is continuous and is the camera which uses the roll freely.
As my illustration shows - Lomography films are pre-exposed. The B&W I develop myself, so it is on the film.
Originally Posted by nexus757
My 110 cameras actually do have a slightly larger image which shows slightly on the pre-exposed edges. At least for B&W, I too would just as soon have no frames, but I guess I'm too lazy to slit and load my own cartridges.
Is it still possible to get these 110 colorfilm cassettes developed in a normal C41 lab?
Well it's a natural development, isn't it? I mean, the premise of "Lomography" in the first place is using crappy cameras with crappy lenses for craptastic results. Using a tiny format for horrible grain on a plastic camera with a plastic lens should get your results to a whole new level of awful, which will be appreciated by masses of pretentious hipsters.
EDIT: I know that quality 110 cameras (Minolta and Pentax SLRs for two) were made and capable of quite nice results at reasonable print sizes for the format. Those might be fun to play with, though if I were buying a smaller than 35mm camera I'd go for 35mm half frame. But using such a tiny film on this thing - well, I just don't get it, but as long as folks are having fun with it and buying film, that's fine with me. They probably don't "get" my messing around with a 4x5 on a tripod either.)
You're confusing 127 with 110. VERY different things. 127 is basically roll film like 120 only slightly smaller, about 4 cm across, thus the 4x4cm "baby" Rolleis. Far larger negatives than 35mm and capable of fine results with modern films if the camera is. 110 is a sub-miniature format with the sizes you list.
Originally Posted by Diapositivo
Hilarious. With its teensy flash unit, it's perfect for Bruce Gilden's "Mini-Me."
The biggest problem I have with Lomo cameras in general aren't the plastic build quality or optical quality or anything like that. For what they are, they're fine. I like the funky square formats and vignetting and all of that.
No, my biggest gripe is exposure control. Almost all of the Lomos, with the exception of the LC-A, you only get one shutter speed and one f-stop, plus bulb. Maybe two f-stops on a better camera. That's it. For what C-41 processing is costing these days, blowing shots because of bad exposure is simply a waste. I'd rather be saving money by shooting a cellphone camera app, even a digital point and shoot.
And don't give me that excuse about color film and its wide latitude. I want the look of a Lomo lens but want to control highlight and shadow exposure.
I've been meaning to do a series of tests with my Lomo and figure out how to use ND filters and fast film to get accurate exposures with a handheld meter, in place of variable apertures and shutter speeds.
I know - maybe it's along the lines of "polishing a turd," but for what film and processing costs, the least we should expect is a decent exposure from a Lomo, especially if you plan on scanning to digital.
Instead of all the colorful new camera models they come out with all the time, how about a real f-stop ring? I'd even be willing to pay a bit more. That's why I haven't purchased any new Lomo cameras in the last few years, you just don't have any exposure control.
<End rant mode.>
Apart from format ratio, could someone explain to me the difference between a Lomo camera and a brownie 127?
The Brownie doesn't have light leaks, isn't hard to load, and doesn't fall apart.
Originally Posted by cliveh
What you need then is a simple plastic lens that will mount on a good quality camera. Lots of the large format folks are using simple plastic meniscus lenses with really interesting results. Shouldn't be too hard to cobble something together inside the gutted barrel of and old lens.
Originally Posted by Joe VanCleave