Daily Mail discovers Lomo

[Aurum]

In the dead tree version this is in the colour suppliment of the Sunday Mail, but for everyone else there is the online version

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1217230/Life-Lo-lane-All-need-know-Lomo-cameras.html

 

[mablo]

"...but still take 120 film, which is no longer made"

Can someone who's registered to the Daily Mail site correct this misunderstanding.

 

[photomem]

Maybe if there was some place in the UK which either manufactured or distributed 120 film? Perhaps an old line company which would make such an outdated product.

Pity.

 

[Andy K]

mablo, it is possible to add comments below the article.

 

[photomem]

I sent one in.. the comments are moderated and because of the "thousands" they receive every day, it may or may not even be looked at, much less posted.

 

[steven_e007]

I sent one, too. That's two of us at least, yet it says "0" comments...

This is the Daily Mail were looking at, though. Not exactly noted for it's well researched and informative journalism ^_^
I'm suprised they've managed to spell 'LOMO' right...

 

[Krzys]

However, you can buy reels from Lomography, which owns much of the remaining stock.

Ha ha ha...

 

[Ian David]

Gosh, I'd almost forgotten just how sh*te the British redtops are... Shame on you for reading the Mail in the first place!

 

[Snapper]

That reminds me of an article in the Metro on pinhole photography a month or so ago - showing how to make your own pinhole camera, including the step of taking the exposed piece of photographic paper straight out of the coke-can camera and then scanning it on a flatbed to produce the final image.....

The Metro - Yesterday's New Today.

 

[Andy K]

That reminds me of an article in the Metro on pinhole photography a month or so ago - showing how to make your own pinhole camera, including the step of taking the exposed piece of photographic paper straight out of the coke-can camera and then scanning it on a flatbed to produce the final image.....

The Metro - Yesterday's New Today.

That was an article about solargraphy where the paper in the pinhole camera is exposed for weeks or months at a time. I'm not sure but I think they were correct about needing to scan the image.

 

[Aurum]

Gosh, I'd almost forgotten just how sh*te the British redtops are... Shame on you for reading the Mail in the first place!

I read the Fail Daily.
I work for a company selling cosmetics and toiletries. I need to know when the Fail has been spreading "Fertiliser", so I can respond and reassure scared members of the public when they read that crap.

Hey its a dirty disgusting job, but like cleaning out a blocked toilet someone has to do it

 

[Snapper]

That was an article about solargraphy where the paper in the pinhole camera is exposed for weeks or months at a time. I'm not sure but I think they were correct about needing to scan the image.

Yes, the article was about the guy who did 6 month + exposures, up In Newcastle (I think), but there was also a piece about how to build your own pinhole camera.

 

[Ian David]

I read the Fail Daily.
I work for a company selling cosmetics and toiletries. I need to know when the Fail has been spreading "Fertiliser", so I can respond and reassure scared members of the public when they read that crap.

Hey its a dirty disgusting job, but like cleaning out a blocked toilet someone has to do it

OK - that sounds like a reasonable excuse! Just a shame that for every member of the public who is put right, a thousand others will continue to lap it up...

 

[Andy K]

OK - that sounds like a reasonable excuse! Just a shame that for every member of the public who is put right, a thousand others will continue to lap it up...

Its Australia's fault. They gave the world Rupert Murdoch.

 

[Andy K]

Btw, comments are now appearing below the article. Already there's one from a digi dickhead.

 

[Aurum]

Its Australia's fault. They gave the world Rupert Murdoch.

Two words :Fox News

 

[Ian David]

Rupert certainly does have a lot to answer for. It would be more comforting if I was able to believe that he was just a stupid bigot, rather than a heartless, calculating megalomaniac.

 

[pentaxuser]

"...but still take 120 film, which is no longer made"

Can someone who's registered to the Daily Mail site correct this misunderstanding.

Let s be fair here. The press have been using digi for about 10 years and the rest of the world with some exceptions does too so maybe it thinks that 120 film has long since died.

The AP magazine had an article this week on a digi shield which prevents paparazzi from taking photographs with digital cameras to protect celebrities' privacy.The owner of Chelsea football club( rich U.K. soccer club for the benefit of our U.S. members) is said to have such a device on his yacht. It interferes with the camera's sensor. Not an April's fools joke, I assume. This mag has been going for 125 years of which about 115 was exclusively film and yet no-one on the staff thought to mention that a film camera is impervious to such a shield. If AP can fail to mention this simple fact then a journalist who may not be old enough to know that 120 film and MF still exists can be forgiven for this mistake.

We may even see press photographers reverting to film cameras for the candid shots. So not all bad news.

pentaxuser

 

[Ian David]

My criticisms of the Mail et al were not limited to the sloppy journalism (which does occur with sad frequency even beyond the tabloids) or the long 'articles' that read very much like paid advertising slots. For my part, I was just taking the opportunity to reminisce about how repellent the redtops are generally.

I do agree that anything which encourages film use is probably a good thing, on balance

 

[mattmoy_2000]

the pictures it takes are so stylish

UGH!
There was me thinking it was my own doing when I got a decent picture, developed it myself, and scanned and tweaked/printed it to my liking, but bugger me, I should have bought a Diana+ and let it take some "stylish" photos for me.
God I hate the Daily Fail, I'm just somewhat surprised that they didn't blame misfocussing on immigrants or lightleaks on gays standing too close to the camera...