Actually, blogging's a bit rubbish, isn't it?

[hirez]

(Thinking out loud)

After about thirty seconds consideration and post a bottle of Bath Ale last night, it seems to me that libeljournal.com needs a good kicking. Meanwhile, mysparedomain.com was defaced back on October (some php b0rkery at first glance) and Movable Type is The Wrong Tool, so, um, town gas.

The New Bike is rather nice. Anyone fancy a meander up the Gloucester & Sharpness canal when the weather's better and the days are longer?

I wonder if my brain will work properly by tomorrow?

And GIP. I've been playing with the output of PH-R's buggered Fuji and the results are encouraging. What I'm after, in my simple-minded way, is some manner of determinedly lo-fi digital Lomovision that doesn't require post-furtling in potatoshop, because that's cheating. Now, I could just purchase some horrible keyring-cam from off the end of a gondola at Tesco, but that's just shitful resolution and shoddy optics. I've already played with that and the results are just dull. This thing's knackeration makes everything look like it was shot in LSD-o-tone.

(Is it all about aperture priority?)

Comments

[d-floorlandmine.livejournal.com]

This thing's knackeration makes everything look like it was shot in LSD-o-tone.
Impressive! How did you knackerify it?

[hirez.livejournal.com]

I've no idea. It just packed up one day. Here are a couple of examples: The first is the un-furtled output, the second is just with Potatoshop's 'auto colour' filter applied. It looks like a psych-goth LP cover.

http://www.libeljournal.com/album/Random/example1.jpg
http://www.libeljournal.com/album/Random/example2.jpg

[d-floorlandmine.livejournal.com]

Looks like the sensor's come somewhat unattached, so it's picking up shake from the shutter mechanism or somewhere! But you're right about the LP-coverishness. Impressive!
When my cameras fail, they fail completely. Or alternatively fail completely with a Canon error code which presumably translates as "give us your bank details and your first-born".

[lastaii.livejournal.com]

You can get the out-of-focus-holga-esque effect by carefully applying vaseline (http://www.flickr.com/photos/eterni/255861219/) or nail polish (http://www.aisling.net/darkroom/nailpolish1.htm) to the edge of the lens with a Q-tip. So long as you leave the centre bit clear it should work quite well. Obviously, not recommended for cameras/lenses you like, tho you can always apply the vaseline to a filter instead...

G&S canal, yes, wanted to do that last summer, but stuff happened.

[quercus.livejournal.com]

Or you could go and buy a real Holga from the gallery (Maison Nathan or whataver it's called) on Perry St where Andy Council has his exhibition at the mo. We were in there on Friday with Tails and the Farmyardeez.
http://andycouncil.co.uk/

[jarkman.livejournal.com]

How much is a Holga in the UK, anyhow ?

[hirez.livejournal.com]

Fifty notes from the Lomography crowd, so probably about a tenner from somewhere sensible.

(There's a Lomo LC/A+ now. Still silly money, mind.)

[jarkman.livejournal.com]

But then, if I wanted a *good* 35mm camera, I'd use a perfectly sensible SLR. What is the LC/A+ for ?

Here's a nice old Lomo:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SMENA-8M-Vintage-Soviet-Russian-LOMO-35mm-Camera_W0QQitemZ300068398335QQihZ020QQcategoryZ93780QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

This has a funnier name:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Robot-Star-50-BLACK-Germany-Camera-Xenon-1-9-40_W0QQitemZ300065630881QQihZ020QQcategoryZ4701QQcmdZViewItem

Ooh! Looks at this madness!
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/StereoMikroma-Stereo-Mikroma-GREEN-Meopta-Camera_W0QQitemZ300055405759QQihZ020QQcategoryZ297QQcmdZViewItem

Right. Time for tea. Must not buy mad old cameras that film has been unobtainable for for my entire lifetime.

[hirez.livejournal.com]

Nathanry, by and large.

[jarkman.livejournal.com]

Ah. I understand.

Eating tea has not assuaged my desire for the Anticyclopean Mikroma. Must try to remain strong.

[reddragdiva]

I was wondering how you got those pics! LSD-o-tone was my first thought too.

What I want to do is get one of the several-years-old Fujis that are easy to remove the infrared filter from. Then do just that (lastaii has done just this, I believe). And take it clubbing and see what I get.

[girfan.livejournal.com]

That's why I was asking about digital cameras late last summer. I tried what was suggested to fix it, and nothing solved it. If J can find use for it, more power to him!

[jarkman.livejournal.com]

Perhaps it would be an entertainment to lay hands on charity-shop or ebay digicams at a few quid each, and have a nurgle at them with screwdrivers ? I'm sure they can be persuaded to go a bit wrong.

[hirez.livejournal.com]

Circuit-bending cameras? Interesting idea. Though I'm not sure that any kit that's fallen that far is going to have a workable resolution. That's the thing about the Lomo; the pictures may come out shoddy, but they're a satisfyingly wierd kind of shoddy that you can get your eyes into. Rubbish resolution is rubbish resolution and gives me a headache.

Actually, the digital domain that we've been sold is a complete crock. Music sounds rubbish, the television's got artifacts in it that wouldn't look out of place on a ZX-Spectrum and most still cameras produce flat and lifeless images. Arse!

[jarkman.livejournal.com]

I would've guessed there would be 2 and 3 megapixel cameras falling out of the bottom of the market - enough pixels to be doing something with, and hopefully big plastic boxes that we would actually be able to get into without destroying the whole thing.

With the Lomo, is it the fuzzyvision or the random exposure & colour variations that do it for you ?

[hirez.livejournal.com]

It's the long exposures and trying not to move much. And the oversaturated colours. Both things I suspect that cheap & cheerful digital kit can't manage.

This is just excellent: http://www.flickr.com/photos/doctorboogie/344249849/in/photostream/

And this is mostly-ok for different reasons: http://www.libeljournal.com/lomography/OddSods/images/Whitby07.jpg

[jarkman.livejournal.com]

It's almost an ethical question. I mean, it would be a Simple Matter of Coding to build any of these effects in the digital realm, and you'd have as much or as little control of the process as you could be bothered to code. I'm sure you would be able to make pictures that were as striking as those.

But, as you say, that would be cheating. The correct thing to do with digital files would be to put them through digital accidents. I wonder what kind of accident would leave a jpeg workable but different ?

[hirez.livejournal.com]

I think that makes the process far too much like the day job, and that's exactly what I don't want. I think what drew me to rubbish cameras (and the XA, which is far from a rubbish camera) was the unreality filter. There's also the JFDI factor. I'm not averse to cropping a picture to alter the framing, but that's about all the tweaking I can ever be bothered with.

Digital accidents. Yes. Though I think they'd have to be the sort of accidents that could befall an image during the picture-taking process. Which leads us neatly back to the specific buggeration in the Fuji.

[jarkman.livejournal.com]

Quite. And, indeed, all credit to the Fuji. Just seems a bit of a shame not to be able to do it on more kit.

[reddragdiva]

Indeed. Big stuff is hackable and works. Trouble is that the biggest stuff that's hackable (as opposed to big because it does a lot) is from 2000-2002 and is increasingly difficult to find as it's worthless, so people chuck it. Garage sales or Freecycle?