I quite like some of the photos here, but wouldn't use Lomography for processing again. City Photographic did a better job: the developing certainly seems better, the scan size was much larger (Lomography's scan size about 1 megapixel, when the 110 has an equivalent resolution of about 10 megapixels), and why do Lomography feel the need to include a scan of the whole negative? Is it to advertise the fact that I was using their film? Well, I have cropped off the edges here.. City Photographic are also cheaper. I only used Lomography because they were around the corner from my office, but not again.
 |
| First shot.. double exposure! |
 |
| I wasn't expecting the Pentax Auto 110 to perform well in low light, and I wasn't disappointed. This is my motorcycle mechanic. |
 |
| Roadworthy? |
 |
| Propping up the bar at the Nomad theatre. |
 |
| Wet view from a train. |
 |
| Still a wet view from a train. |
 |
| Tintin is in there, see? |
 |
| Enjoying the sun. |
 |
| Reflections. |
 |
| Rooftops. |
 |
| And a hipster-highlock to finish off the film.. |
