Digital Lomography

Melodica

Just an experiment... this is my "Digital Diana F+" - a Nikon D1 fitted with a Diana F+ (single element, all plastic) lens.

The shoot was for a high school senior and I was going for the current clothing/style catalog look - Aero / Abercrombie / Hollister / Urban Outfitters - that kind of thing.

I know the D1 is hardly cutting edge digital, but it's the Lomo look I'm after, so it's perfect for the job (maybe - thus the post!).

C&C Welcome!
(Yes, I know it's soft focus and just a tad noisy, but it's "emotion" and "feel" I'm after with this experiment rather than razor focus and perfect exposure.)

1.
<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2733/4372032874_2caf290d93.jpg&quot; width="500" height="328" alt="DSC_1667wm" />

2.
<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2773/4372032752_1f89acee1b.jpg&quot; width="500" height="328" alt="DSC_1663wm" />

3.
<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4055/4371283667_330d45b045.jpg&quot; width="500" height="328" alt="DSC_1685wm" />

It's my first post here, so, hello to you all!! Don't hold back on the criticism, I can take it!

Jwar

If you're going for a clothing catalog look...here goes..
1. don't see clothing, but an ok shot
2. Like the framing, best of the bunch
3. Looks like she's yawning?

Overall, i like the look and feel of the first 2.
Hope this helps..

l.k.madison

Personally, I think they're all three too blurry, going from less to more blur, respectively. But you knew my opinion already

craig_d

Given your goal and the use of a plastic lens, I think these are good. The first one seems a little odd because the background seems to be in sharper focus than the girl. I'm not quite sure what to make of #3; I wouldn't call it a "clothing catalog" shot, not least because of the B&W treatment, but it's a decent shot in and of itself.

Coleman Photography

Yes number one is def wierd. You said you were going for the soft look which seems to work but the background is sharper then the actuall subject.
Overall nice set.

Nikonic1

The softness is really distracting for me. Others might not see it as an issue but I don't like it much. I understand what you were going for but just don't love the end result.

#1 pose is weird, #3 looks like a yawn, #2 isn't bad but she's so deep in the field of view I gt a little distracted by the OOF stuff up front.

Sorry I didn't have anything great to say, I try to be as honest as possible when I reply.

Justiceiro

The big draw with lomography, such as it is, is the randomness associated with using these notoriously unreliable machines; either the lomo, the diana, an unCLAed pentacon, whatever.

The randomness, however, is due mostly to light leaks and frame spacing issues. None of which occur with a digital camera. So basically you just put a really crap lens on a digital camera, and the pictures reflect that.

The whole idea of lomography is sort of wedded to film. What exactly that idea is, and what it is worth, can be debated. But digital lomography really, really doesn't work. I'd even say its philosophically impossible.

SnapLocally

Shot 3 looks like she's about to get a date she didn't bargain for.

I'm going to be completely honest, and please don't take offense, as this isn't a personal attack... but these shots stink.

In my personal opinion, I'd stick with the basics of photography- even if that means using a kit lens- before branching out and trying to develop your own style. By "the basics" I mean properly focused, well composed, properly exposed photos.

l.k.madison

Melodica's wife here.... (the other half of the 2 from Squared)

I'm going to step up and defend him, he does shoot with a basic camera + kit lens, plus any other lens he can get his hands on. I'm personally not a fan of these shots. BUT we both have TOTALLY different styles in photography, I'm not a fan of Lomo shots, at ALL, but he is. I respect him for the photographer that he is, regardless of how much I like his shots. Some come out AMAZING and breathtaking, others (like the third one above) I just don't like - at ALL.

He mainly posted these just to see what the un-biased reaction would be. I sat next to him (and walked him through doing his first post). Most of you think like I do a) why would you put a plastic lens on a so-so camera (the D1 is 2.1 megapixels) and b) if you have to EXPLAIN the look you're going for, you didn't do it right.

Just my $.02, that's all .

*note, he's AMAZING at black and white conversions and getting sunflare, way better at it than I'll admit to his face

Justiceiro

l.k.madison wrote:

I'm going to step up and defend him, he does shoot with a basic camera + kit lens, plus any other lens he can get his hands on. I'm personally not a fan of these shots. BUT we both have TOTALLY different styles in photography, I'm not a fan of Lomo shots, at ALL, but he is. I respect him for the photographer that he is, regardless of how much I like his shots. Some come out AMAZING and breathtaking, others (like the third one above) I just don't like - at ALL.

I don't think they are awful, and I hope I haven't been interpreted that way. Nor do I want to indicate that I think such a thing shouldn't be attempted (I'm all for trying out wired combos of equipment.) I just think you need the light leaks. And the unpredictability. And I'm a fan of analog.

met

l.k.madison wrote:

Melodica's wife here.... (the other half of the 2 from Squared)

No wonder I was confused. I was wondering how it could be his first post when I know I've seen that watermark.

1. Doesn't do it for me because of the aforementioned reasons.

2. I like this shot. I like the color tones and overall feel.

3. The noise and blur doesn't bother me because of the black and white conversion, but her expression doesn't do anything for me. Perhaps if she was really screaming and yelling, but it looks like just kind of halfway which doesn't seem to work imo.

l.k.madison

I don't think they are awful, and I hope I haven't been interpreted that way. Nor do I want to indicate that I think such a thing shouldn't be attempted (I'm all for trying out wired combos of equipment.) I just think you need the light leaks. And the unpredictability. And I'm a fan of analog.

.

I personally thing that any art (photography included) is a matter of taste, just because the artist loves it (or hates it) doesn't mean that others will agree with him.

Don't worry, we have our fair share of light leaks in this house - my Christmas present was wrapped with accidentally exposed film from that same girl's "inside" shoots from 5 months ago.

No wonder I was confused. I was wondering how it could be his first post when I know I've seen that watermark.

I KNEW (well, hoped) somebody would recognize that watermark I'm so glad it stuck out and you remembered it! Whether you like it or not, you remembered it, thus, doing it's job.

3. The noise and blur doesn't bother me because of the black and white conversion, but her expression doesn't do anything for me. Perhaps if she was really screaming and yelling, but it looks like just kind of halfway which doesn't seem to work imo.

The look on her face was made when she got her fingers stuck in a tangle, she's brushing her hair out with her hands to avoid the static (it was SUPER dry that day). I didn't see her do it- at ALL but hubby caught it.

Wineman

If the shots where properly posed, and some feeling came out of them I might like them. I am a fan of Lomography, I really like the whole concept and all, a crapy camera and a wrongly developed film... its fun, but I turned digital long time ago, and I am not about go back to film, for that reason I learned to process in the style of lomography, getting the punchy colors, the weird focus and a terrible pinhole effect, it can all be done in postprocess. I now the real lomographers (is that even a word?) will say its not the same, and are probably right, but it sure is easier.

Keep it up!!! thanks for sharing.

Z.