digital lomography

I am very much in love with lomography. But it has one downside: it’s quite expensive. Analogue photography is a lot more costly than it used to be. Not necessarily the film itself, nor the camera’s. No, it’s the developing and printing that’s expensive. Most of the developing is completely computerized and done by machine. These computers and machines can’t handle the different formats and inconsequent spacing between the frames (which happens when you use the wrong format with the wrong camera and have to advance the film by hand). And not all labworkers are familiar with lomography. The first time i had a roll of film developed, they had only printed a few of the pictures because they thought something was wrong with my camera. They thought the double exposures were a mistake.

For those of you who aren’t purists, who only care about the end result and not how you get there: here’s a great tutorial for faking cross processing in Photoshop (by With this tutorial you can make your cheap digital photo’s look like cross processed analogue prints.

Here’s two before and afters of photo’s i took around the city of Groningen in 2010.





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s