it's actually from an old Sony Cybershot DSC-S30 -- which for some reason takes the most beautiful nightshots, leaning towards oversaturated and vibrant. unfortunately the camera died soon after this. altho among my group have friends, the camera has survived four years of hard use, so it lived a good life.
amazing that a digital camera could do that. i never can seem to get my to do this stuff. that's why i love my lomo so much. it can be tempermental, but the results when it works are beautiful. what other cameras do you use?
ah, nothing too fantastic. i hadn't even heard of lomo before you posted a comment -- but it sure looks cool, albeit spendy for a ghetto-cam. i did play with an SX-70 for a while (see new sx70 album), which seems to have similar effects as the lomo.
i currently play with an old Canon TX 35mm, and a new (to me at least) Olympus C-3000. i just can't afford 35mm processing here in astoria, unfortunately: nice quality, sure, but $12.50 per 24roll is insane.
yes, lomos are expensive, but i was looking for a camera that i could have control over it like a SLR, but have it be more compact and cheaper then my minolta. i've had mine for five years and it has served me well. here is my friend ana's lomo site. good stuff.
http://www.snowangels.com/photo/lomohome.html
also my friend lisa is a professional photographer and uses a sx70 for some of her shoots. http://www.lisapredko.com/
the portrait she did of me and also the portrait of blur were done on an sx70. beautiful results. maybe i'll try and find one.
$12.50 per roll. damn, i get my photos done cheaper here in NYC. strange.
i've always had this irrational fixation on getting a K-1000 for a small, durable, simple SLR. it might have to do with my Canon weighing 5 pounds, so i never want to take it anywhere. ironically, my new digital is also quite bulky -- i thought about getting a nearly equivalent but super-tiny Olympus D-40, but decided for a the bigger, cheaper version of antiquated Olympus.
both those sites you linked to are very cool.. i must say the lomo does take some distinctly beautiful pictures -- especially with the deep blues and reds.
the effed part of the cost of processing here is they told me it would be $6.50 when i dropped em off. it's an ancient, smalltown photo studio, and i think the misinformation was more from a mixture of smalltown thought-glop and longstanding static leading to senility, rather than maliciousness or deceit. but the nicely colored (and 4"x6" sized) Astoria photos i uploaded are scans from those prints.
the K-1000 looks like a beautiful camera. nice to see that you go for the more older durable cameras of yester year. they are so much better made then the cheap plastic camera bodies of today. (probably why they weigh so much. sigh.)
the colors are one of the main reasons i love lomos so much. i've been a photographer since i was 15 and never loved the results of color. (much happier as a b/w photo girl.) anyways, lomos were the first time a film camera produced the colors that i wanted out of my photography. maybe i'll send you some of the ones that i have taken. been lazy and haven't put them on a site yet. graduate school kinda eats up your time.
the astoria photos are good. they do have nice processing. were they on matte paper or glossy? also still trying to find a place here in NYC that can print my photos the way i want them. had a great place in chicago, but nothing here has measured up. such a big city and i can't seem to find anything. weird.
8 comments on this entry
beautiful colors and blurs. reminds me of lomo photos. what type of a camera did this?
it's actually from an old Sony Cybershot DSC-S30 -- which for some reason takes the most beautiful nightshots, leaning towards oversaturated and vibrant. unfortunately the camera died soon after this. altho among my group have friends, the camera has survived four years of hard use, so it lived a good life.
amazing that a digital camera could do that. i never can seem to get my to do this stuff. that's why i love my lomo so much. it can be tempermental, but the results when it works are beautiful. what other cameras do you use?
ah, nothing too fantastic. i hadn't even heard of lomo before you posted a comment -- but it sure looks cool, albeit spendy for a ghetto-cam. i did play with an SX-70 for a while (see new sx70 album), which seems to have similar effects as the lomo.
i currently play with an old Canon TX 35mm, and a new (to me at least) Olympus C-3000. i just can't afford 35mm processing here in astoria, unfortunately: nice quality, sure, but $12.50 per 24roll is insane.
yes, lomos are expensive, but i was looking for a camera that i could have control over it like a SLR, but have it be more compact and cheaper then my minolta. i've had mine for five years and it has served me well. here is my friend ana's lomo site. good stuff.
http://www.snowangels.com/photo/lomohome.html
also my friend lisa is a professional photographer and uses a sx70 for some of her shoots. http://www.lisapredko.com/
the portrait she did of me and also the portrait of blur were done on an sx70. beautiful results. maybe i'll try and find one.
$12.50 per roll. damn, i get my photos done cheaper here in NYC. strange.
i've always had this irrational fixation on getting a K-1000 for a small, durable, simple SLR. it might have to do with my Canon weighing 5 pounds, so i never want to take it anywhere. ironically, my new digital is also quite bulky -- i thought about getting a nearly equivalent but super-tiny Olympus D-40, but decided for a the bigger, cheaper version of antiquated Olympus.
both those sites you linked to are very cool.. i must say the lomo does take some distinctly beautiful pictures -- especially with the deep blues and reds.
the effed part of the cost of processing here is they told me it would be $6.50 when i dropped em off. it's an ancient, smalltown photo studio, and i think the misinformation was more from a mixture of smalltown thought-glop and longstanding static leading to senility, rather than maliciousness or deceit. but the nicely colored (and 4"x6" sized) Astoria photos i uploaded are scans from those prints.
the K-1000 looks like a beautiful camera. nice to see that you go for the more older durable cameras of yester year. they are so much better made then the cheap plastic camera bodies of today. (probably why they weigh so much. sigh.)
the colors are one of the main reasons i love lomos so much. i've been a photographer since i was 15 and never loved the results of color. (much happier as a b/w photo girl.) anyways, lomos were the first time a film camera produced the colors that i wanted out of my photography. maybe i'll send you some of the ones that i have taken. been lazy and haven't put them on a site yet. graduate school kinda eats up your time.
the astoria photos are good. they do have nice processing. were they on matte paper or glossy? also still trying to find a place here in NYC that can print my photos the way i want them. had a great place in chicago, but nothing here has measured up. such a big city and i can't seem to find anything. weird.
Lomos enjoy a cultlike following http://www.lomography.com/
here's a link that tells a bit more, there are lomo clubs all over, including a group in portland.
p.s. i have one, haven't used it yet.
Commenting closed.