I have a love hate relationship with Lomography. I love the fact that it encourages people to use film, not because film is superior but because without sales film will die and I'll not be able to use my older cameras which is something I personally enjoy.

As to the technical aspects, I agree that endless detailed discussion is rather dull. The dreaded full frame debate is an excellent example. All those lens tests with charts and tables and figures never put across the character of a lens such as the swirly bokeh of FSU lenses. Lee Frost has produced some wonderful images on toy cameras with plastic lenses. Technical knowledge, however, is another matter. If you are photographing a building for a book on architecture a fuzzy image with vignetting and converging verticals isn't going to cut the mustard.

I think most of us would agree that both Ansel Adams and Henri Cartier-Bresson were superb photographers. Adams' large format, sharp, (usually) perfectly exposed and expertly printed images suit his subjects. Cartier-Bresson's use of a `miniature' format (i.e., 35mm), grabbed images, often not sharp and always printed by someone else suit his subjects. In other words, both used the equipment and techniques most appropriate to their aims.

When looking at an image there are two things to consider. Firstly, does the image meet the requirements asked of it? A fuzzy crooked image of an artefact is of no use to me for a site report, for example. Secondly, does it meet what I call "the wall test" by which I simply mean, would you be happy having that image on your wall? The former is relatively easy to assess, the latter is an entirely subjective matter of taste. The most expensive photograph ever sold is, IMHO, dull and boring and would never make it onto my wall!

I find myself, therefore, agreeing with Smeggy. Technical information and knowledge has its place, but for Heaven's sake don't turn into the caricature camera club bore who spends his life (and sadly it is usually 'his') photographing newspapers stuck to brick walls and blathering on endlessly about test shots. After all, the most important thing a photographer can possess is a good eye for an image, and that is something which comes from a combination of innate ability, looking at lots of other people's images and taking lots of ones own.

Go, have fun, take photos, show us the ones you like. That aspect of Lomography I completely agree with.

Insomnia sucks, doesn't it?

Cheers, Kris.

I like Kodak Ektar 100 but it can suffer from funny colour casts if not processed very carefully. As a result I pay a premium to have them developed, printed and scanned at the Darkroom UK. Not a cheap service, but generally excellent and I'm happy with them. I did try "drugstore" processing when I was in the US but I got fed up with funny colours and scratched negatives. I'm afraid I'd rather pay the extra for peace of mind than skimp and get rubbish back. I know that some cheaper places will do a perfectly good job, finding the right place is the challenge.

Best wishes, Kris.

I like the first and last ones very much. Have you thought of a slight crop (maybe as a 5x4 image) of the last one, just trimming a little bit of the dark tree to the right off?

Best wishes, Kris.

I think this is a lovely series, very nicely conceived and executed. K.

Sort of... the sensor assumes that the aperture is set to the value given on the indicator and measures the light appropriately. So if you have the sensor set to orange and the aperture at f/5.6 instead of f/8** you'll get one stop of over exposure. The problem is that if the bounce diffuses the light too much the flash won't be powerful enough and even with a full discharge you might end up with an underexposed image. The trick, therefore, is that if the subject is 30 feet away but you are bouncing the flash, set the sensor to yellow and the aperture to f/5.6. Hopefully, then, there is enough oomph in the flash to light the scene but if there is more than enough, the sensor will cut the light off before it gets over-exposed.

There is a manual adaptor for the Vivitar 283 although I have only seen one for sale once. With that you can use a flash meter and adjust the power appropriately.

K.

** assuming 400 film speed as in the original post.

K.

Boots usually have an unadvertised 3 for 2 offer on film. I get my Kodak BW400CN there. Otherwise, 7dayshop or Silverprint. Avoid the Lomography store, terribly over-priced.

K.

I like the monochrome image a great deal but now I would take a small slice off the bottom... Always one more tweak!

Cheers, Kris.

Leader of the Flock

Same details as above.




K.

Pentax ME-F, AF35-70mm f/2.8 zoom, Kodak Ektar 100 film.




K.

This is a bit of a "how long is a piece of string" question but here goes anyway...

The "traditional" portrait length for 35mm was an 85mm lens and all of the Pentax offerings at that length are superb, as is the FA 77mm Ltd. One alternative is the slightly longer SMC Pentax-M (or -A) 100mm f/2.8. These were, however, designed for film cameras and are probably a bit long for APS-C. The DA* 55mm seems to be the intended replacement lens and has a good reputation. If you want a modern autofocus lens, the DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 is excellent choice which also gives some flexibility. Not the fastest AF in the world, but gorgeous image quality.

K.