jimkenny Loc: Palm Coast FL

I recently began using the LOMO LC-A+ with Fujicolor 200 and was disappointed with the results. The camera is a point and shoot so shutter speed and aperture adjustments were not an option. I changed the ASA to 400, took two shots of the same subject, developed the film at home, as usual, no compensation for pushing the film. Here are a few samples of the unedited, other than scanning and printing. The first picture is at 200. The handsome dude, is me, in case you were wondering. I get the impression that at 200 ISO for this camera, it overexposes consistently. I prefer 400. I do make some final adjustments in PS. Not earth-shattering information but an easy fix for me.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Jim, I agree that the ASA 400 works best. The skin tones of the handsome dude look good on the ASA 400 if it was taken late in the afternoon.

Welcome aboard UHH.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

The camera has no adjustments, how did you change the Depth of Field? What on your camera does change when you use different ISOs. It has been nearly a lifetime since I've used a "toy" type camera with no meter or any adjustments. Have I forgotten something? I do remember finding my personal calibrated ASA per some Zone System stuff with Plus-x and Tri-x films.

jimkenny Loc: Palm Coast FL

This camera has zone focusing that I can adjust 3 6 15 feet and auto exposure.. the only other thing I can adjust is the I so, oh, and multiple exposures . I think someone around here could give you a better answer about Iso, I can only presume that tricking the camera into thinking it has a more light sensitive film in it, t, he autonactic exposure mechanism let's in less light thereby offering more saturated color., I think. All I know for sure is that I prefer shooting this particular film fujicolor 200 at 400.

jimkenny Loc: Palm Coast FL

I'm glad you agree.

Kaib795 Loc: Maryland, USA

Interesting that we perceive things so different in the digital camera sense and with film where it's more of getting the shot exposure correct. I did notice you saying you use Photoshop so images can be adjusted. In that light, from my digital view, the lighter shot is what I'd use as long as the highlights are never blown. Shoot with a gray card (so one shot will be for Kelvin or white balance). Sample the gray card to get rid of odd color shifts and tone down the original bright shot so it's balanced and in doing so you'll hold more detail in the shadows. But if you don't use LR or PS just use the ASA that gives better off the cuff shots (no editing). I started with film in 1977 with a Nikon F. It was all about sticking with the same film to learn, w/o metering, the right exposures namely in B&W or Kodachrome films. Things are easier today but you now do much of the work in post editing on a computer. My commercial printing background has made the transition a easy one but much can be learned watching YouTube Tutorials. Now you have a opposite view to consider. Oh, of the small film cameras, I had a Olympus XA4 Macro pocket camera that took great shots from atop my motorcycle where my Dad and I went on BMW rally's up and down the east coast, USA. Even used it on very cold snow skiing trips (had to fake the ISO lower to give more exposure but it worked).