Anyway, if you don’t follow me on Twitter, you may’ve missed that I had some exciting job news today. I’m re-joining Future Publishing (after leaving at the tail-end of ’09 to join the US Gizmodo), to launch a UK version of Gizmodo. It will be a dedicated UK site that’ll take a feed of some of the more relevant content, balanced out with a heavy dose of localised content about UK networks, services and the like. Plus all the usual off-topic japes and shenanigans you’ve come to expect from Gizmodo.

While I’m still on holiday for another week or so, I’m really excited about pulling my sleeves up and getting started properly. This has been a long time coming — double, no triple the length of time you have in your mind! — and has been extremely difficult to keep quiet. While I already owe about 99.9 trillion people an email, I’m looking forward to the challenge – hopefully my marriage/friendships/blog won’t suffer too much under the weight of the launch!

And pyjamas, while I’ve enjoyed working inside of you for the past 20 months, I’m actually looking forward to swapping my “lady of leisure” lifestyle for the corporate world, believe it or not.

If I haven’t stolen enough of your time yet, we’ve had some nice media coverage about the partnership between Future and Gawker Media, which you can read about on these fine sites:

- The Guardian
- MediaWeek
- PaidContent
-TechRadar
- MCV
- PPA
- The Drum
- GamesIndustry

…and of course, on Gizmodo.

*Gold star if you can guess the warblers of those classics.

Jim’s and my shoes, shot at the Belle & Sebastian gig at the Roundhouse, on Fuji T64

Of the three rolls of film I shot the other week on Lomography’s LC-Wide camera, all 108 photos turned out perfectly — though the photographer’s skill left something to be desired in many of them, whoops.

Nonetheless, I managed to surprise myself with these ones. Take a look under the jump for more, and for the original review I wrote for Giz (the final version was cut down by a third):

Brockwell Park half-frames, shot on Kodak Portra 400vc

Kat and Kat half-frames joined together, shot on Fuji T64

Brockwell Park lens-flare, shot on Kodak Portra 400vc

Brockwell Park, shot on Fuji T64

Gazebo flowers double-exposure square-frame, shot on Kodak Portra 400vc

Brockwell Park house, shot on Fuji T64

Overexposed ducks, shot on Kodak Portra 400vc

UPDATED: My review at Gizmodo finally went live after sitting in our CMS for two weeks, and unfortunately the published review was about a third the length of what I originally wrote. Them’s the downfalls of publishing, and having someone edit your work, I guess.

But there’s no stopping me posting my full-length review here! (Except for some pesky copyright issues, but we’ll just gloss over those for the minute…)

————————————-

Lomography LC-Wide Review: Don’t Call It a Toy Camera

Apply as many filters as you want in Instagram, but you’re not making art. To make true poetry, you need 35mm film, refreshed with Lomography’s latest take on an old Soviet classic, the LC-Wide.

Why It Matters: Rather than a replacement for a digital camera, I like to think of film cameras as being mediums for art–though some very-active members of the Lomography community, like Golfpunkgirl, shoot purely with film. Sitting on the top of the Lomography-branded pedestal is the LC-Wide, the most “serious” model in a sea of plastic snappers.

Disregarding 2006′s LC-A+, which added a greater ISO range, the ability to take multiple-exposures and option for accessories and cable release; the LC-A of 1984 was a bare bones 35mm film camera much-loved for its vignetting, light leaks, color saturation and other characteristics of the lo-fi lomo movement you’ve probably tinkered with in apps like Hipstamatic. The first true reworking of the LC-A may cost at least 3x as much as the original, but with the new 17mm wide-angle lens and ability to switch formats, it’s like an amalgamation of several other Lomography cameras, in one smart-and-red case.

Using It: One of the new features with the LC-Wide borrows from the dinky Diana Mini–the option to switch between square and half-frame shots, plus shoot in standard full-frame. Bundled in the smart packaging are two frame masks that you physically insert for shooting square or half-frame, but beware that you’re consigned to shooting in that format for the duration of the roll. Unless you flick a switch to force it into half-frame shooting, where you can actually snap 72 photos on a 36-photo roll, albeit with a lessened angle of view at 81 degrees as opposed to 103 degrees. Doing this, you lose the clean-cut edges of individual photo frames, but you can actually force a panorama effect, where the various half-frame shots are stitched together and overlap almost like a multiple exposure.

If you don’t put a frame mask in, you can shoot stunningly wide-angle images at 103 degrees, where the shots display a greater depth of field, and more intense vignetting (darker corners.) This is something I’ve been unable to reproduce on the LC-A+, and despite Lomography selling a wide-angle lens attachment for the previous model at $150, the 20mm attachment doesn’t go quite the distance of the native 17mm lens on the LC-Wide. Plus it doesn’t look quite so hot with the bundled viewfinder attached.

As you can see in the test photos’ gallery below, my full-frame shots (taken on some cross-processed Fuji T64 film) have a fantastic amount of vignetting, whereas the Kodak Portra 400VC I chose for the square-frame makes for a more natural color reproduction. Like with the LC-A+, you ISO-push (deliberately change the ISO settings, even if it doesn’t match the film) to produce dreamy overexposed photos, or underexpose for some seriously stormy-looking clouds.

To go one step further, you can actually trick the camera into shooting almost like it’s been shuttered, by half-sliding the shutter door across, which introduces some really strong vignetting on either side of the frame. Naturally, you can also take double, triple or as many exposures as you like in the one frame, by sliding the multi-exposure switch across. Combine with a Diana flash attached to the hotshoe adapter on top, and you’ll get a great contrast perfect for parties.

Like: It’s a very familiar grip for anyone who’s ever shot on an LC-A+, and lesser so on the all-metal LC-A. At 220g (minus the roll of 35mm film and 3x LR44 batteries) it’s light, yet durable and sturdy enough that it can be thrown into a bag without concern for damage. Shooting with the LC-Wide couldn’t be simpler, though there is a lot to learn (or re-learn) when shooting with the various delicacies of film. Unlike the LC-A+, the LC-Wide has just two focal settings: 40cm to 80cm, and 80cm to “infinity.” This makes it easier to get it right, as most of my duff shots in the past have been associated with them being on the wrong focal setting.

No Like: Are the new features worth an extra $100? The LC-A+ costs an already-too-pricy $250, but $350 does seem to push the LC-Wide out of the fun-follies bracket and into the dangerous ok-now-you’re-costing-as-much-as-an-entry-level-DSLR redzone. As I explained earlier though, these cameras shouldn’t be viewed as a replacement for digital, but it’s a hard pill to swallow nonetheless. With the added cost of film and developing, it suddenly becomes a very expensive hobby.

Should I Buy It: If you’ve been considering jumping into the Lomography world, or are fairly confident of your success-rate from the sub-$100 models they make, the LC-Wide is without a doubt the best camera to go for. The 17mm lens and format-switching features are worth the extra $100 over the LC-A+, but however great these new tools are, it’s simply not worth LC-A+ owners laying out the money for an upgrade.

Now, my brain just has to convince my heart of that fact, so I can stop looking at my vignetted sample shots below, and be happy with my now-crummy 32mm lens.

Trying out new cameras — and old cameras! — is one of my favourite pastimes, and luckily it’s one of the perks of the job. As an owner and fan of several Lomography cameras, it was an honour to give the new LC-Wide a whirl last weekend for a Gizmodo review that should be going up tomorrow.

As unboxings on tech blogs are so terribly passé now (or so we’ve seemingly deemed), I’m plonking these photos on my blog instead. I don’t know about you lot, but I can scarcely contain myself when faced with well-branded packaging, like the following pictures show…

Peel off the paper cummerband, and you’ve got a black wooden box which doubles up as a handy receptacle for storing film!

I’m not sure if the little cardboard box that houses the LC-Wide is meant to have so much space on the side of it (the LC-Wide had been opened previous to me), but I love the care to detail in every single piece of packaging Lomography produces.

Inside, a couple of rolls of film; some masks for half-frame or square shots; a cable release and…

Two big hardback Lomo books! It’s not the big £70 LC-A+ one they sell, but smaller LC-A+ and LC-Wide tomes.

Slide the latch for half-frame shots…

Or open it wide for full-frame snaps.

As you can see, it also has a hotshoe for attaching a Diana flash to.

Tomorrow I’ll upload some photos from my three test rolls, so you can see the kind of quality you can expect from the £349 LC-Wide. Until then…bed! By way of the kitchen, where I need to do some quick midnight-icing of some cupcakes I whipped up earlier, that is.

I definitely have a problem. That’s 25 rolls of film that I’ve bought online in the past week that you can see there, and I’m waiting on another 15 rolls of Fuji T64 and five more rolls of assorted other flavours to arrive. It’ll probably take me 45 weeks at least to get through all of those, and that’s before I get through my stash of six or so rolls that I already had stock-piled.

It was just too tempting to hit up eBay over the weekend and take advantage of all those cheap cheap auctions while everyone was off gallivanting around the world for Easter. Luckily we had internet down in Cornwall over the weekend, so I managed to get some really good prices on some of the rare/discontinued/expired films I acquired, particularly on the 126 film.

I bought my first 126 film the other week — a Kodak Instamatic 100, which you can see here. Ain’t she gorgeous? I think I paid about a quid on eBay for her. Not bad considering she was made in ’63 — ’66, and originally cost $16 in the US.

Be prepared for a lot more trial-and-error type photo uploads to Flickr, people.

Just a quickie to say that if you happen to switch on the telly and watch BBC News today, you might see me hovering outside Buckingham Palace talking about the royal wedding’s use of social media.

We filmed the spot last Wednesday, and I forgot entirely about it until I checked Twitter at lunch today and saw that it had already gone out. It must’ve made it onto BBC Worldwide as well, as someone from India mentioned seeing me!

Thankfully I don’t look like too much of a lobster in the 26-degree heat (it was surely London’s hottest day of the year that day), and I didn’t sound like too much of a dimwit. These media appearances are getting a little easier each time, but I still feel really awkward watching myself afterwards.

You can view the video on the BBC here.

I haven’t gone that far (people are probably puzzled enough by what I tweet about), but I did screengrab some of my favourites…

World’s wankiest tech meeja tweet? Dropping some Michael Bay knowledge and bragging about boozing it up in the park “with some media!” You’d think I’d know the difference between champagne and processor now, though.

Thandie Newton…she so long!

The only thing I got out of this tweet is that Griffin iAccessories are good. Which they are!

I wonder which Laura this is about. All three Lauras I know are proper booze-hounds, so it could be aaaany one of them.

Steve Buscemeyes *shudder*

Patriotic of my Mumrock playlist I am, though it’s not finished yet. I’m more patriotic of my Dadrock playlist. (Warning: Spotify links.)

I am definitely morally opposed to Cmd Zorg shutting down UK:Resistance.

It’s never too late for cider, sheesh.

Again, I’ve no idea which Laura this is directed at, nor why That Can Be My Next Tweet thinks I’m a “drug-taker.”
Those non-tech wives and their realism! Man!

Really, I’m surprised this was the only reference to Twilight that the website turned up out of my tweets.

Friends are always prancing about in socks on sunny days, while I’m left alone to celebrate Mick Hucknall’s birthday. Happens every year *sighs*
Clerkenwellians; watch out for that Lenin cat!

I love that Lomography has decided to honour this important week-off with three new clone cameras. What are Lomography clones, I hear you ponder? Why, I’m glad you asked! They’re special limited-edition versions of their most popular camera models — usually the Diana F+, the Fisheye, and more recently the teensy Diana Mini. Sometimes they’re done in partnership with a shop (see the Colette version), band (the White Stripes) or country (like the El Toro and Hong Meow ones); other times they’re simply a different colour or painted to the hills with details, like with the Valentine’s Day models.

Taking inspiration from the sakura (Japan’s cherry blossom, which is very much part of their national identity — and even features on one of their coins), the Diana Mini Jiyu (top) is my pick of the bunch, and not just for the fact that it takes the more-affordable 35mm film with ease. The floral design is tastefully done in beige and white, and the glossy flash that it comes bundled with really ties the whole thing together. It’s £99, and £20 of the sale will be donated to the Red Cross’ Japan relief fund.

Likewise, sales of the other two models will see £20 donated to the Red Cross also, though it’s worth pointing out that these clones actually cost £19 more each than their classic counterparts.

The Shiawase clone (middle) of the Fisheye 2 is tastefully decorated in the same hues, and takes the same fun 170-degree photos on 35mm film as other models. This is one of the cheapest cameras Lomography produces, but you’re hindered by the fact it only shoots fisheye photos — I’d personally choose the Diana F+ and buy a fisheye lens add-on (plus the 35mm back, so you’re not confined to shooting just on 120mm film, which is more expensive to buy and develop, and you get about a third of the frames as 35mm film.) This model is £79.

Lomography’s most popular camera, the Diana F+, has an intricate little design of fans all over its body for the Kirameki clone, plus a blue flash. To my eyes it doesn’t look pearly like the Diana Mini’s flash, but at least it’s not the more powder-blue of their classic flash. This model is £89.

It’s not just the desktop wallpaper (courtesy of Flickr user Crazy-Ivory) that has got me all hot under the collar. Oh no. It’s my brand new icons that I’m particularly dishing on. They come via designer Billy Brown, who made a whole heap of downloadable camera icons for use however we see fit — for me, I saw Huge Icon Potential.

You can see I’ve replaced my Macintosh HD icon with a Polaroid (though I actually had a big hazchem logo before it); my desktop folder “Blog Stuff” is a Lubitel; my “dump” folder is a roll of Fuji; “Gizmodo pics” is a disposable Kodak and “Pictures alias” is…a Diana F!

Down on the dock, I’ve replaced iPhoto with a rather nice-lookin’ “traditional” cam (if anyone knows what it is — in between Calendar and Word — please let me know!) On the right-side of Word, I’ve replaced Photoshop with a flash, and on the right of that I’ve replaced the Chrome logo with another Polaroid.

I’m still grappling with that “oh no where is Photoshop?” anxiety when I hover on my dock and can’t locate the icon. I’ll get used to it in a few days, but my heart has stopped several times today already, I will admit.

Hidden away in OS X I’ve got a few more visual gifts (for myself). There’s a SanDisk SD card for Dropbox; Library is a lens; Movies is a Leica; Music is a Holga and for Sites I chose a Mini Diana with flash.

If you don’t know how to change OS X icons, there’s a guide here; however I use the free download PixaDex to manage all my icons. Get Billy Brown’s camera icons here.

Even Effie looks upset over how poor Lomography’s customer service is

I have to get this out before I just explode with anger: I am SO UNBELIEVABLE ANGRY AND FRUSTRATED BY LOMOGRAPHY’S CUSTOMER SERVICE.

There. Don’t think that didn’t hurt me to write — after all, I’ve been a loyal customer for several years now, having bought three cameras, spent hundreds on Lomography-brand film and even more money at the London Lomography Gallery Store processing my film.

Not to mention I’ve supported them at their various parties, events and workshops — and blogged endlessly about them here, and at my employer’s site, Gizmodo.

Some of you may’ve read I was having difficulty with my recently-purchased LC-A+, namely with the batteries. Or so I thought that was what the issue was, having been told by the London store staff in December, after three rolls of my film were botched. I blogged my story here, but also at Gizmodo — not expecting anything to come of it, really, because I just thought it was a nice (if sad) human-interest tale that readers may find interesting. It has had over 26,000 page views, to date.

The thought that someone from Lomography may get in touch after reading it had occurred to me, but it certainly wasn’t expected. A nice lady from Kodak’s UK PR emailed and offered me some rolls of film, feeling bad for me — which was lovely, but not necessary. A token apology from Lomography’s customer service and maybe even assurance that they were looking into the battery issue would’ve been nice. But no such contact was made.

HERE COMES THE FRUSTRATING PART…

Some of you may have heard it was my birthday last Monday. Some of you may know I like to take a lot of photos. Having armed my LC-A+ with new batteries that morning, I was dismayed to find the camera still wasn’t working — so considering I was in town with my camera, I popped by the Soho store. After fiddling with the camera, and trying various batteries in it, they concluded that actually, the problem with the camera wasn’t the batteries, but the electrics.

In short, I was sold a faulty camera by Lomography. It’s cruel that I only found out after three wasted rolls of films — photos shot over the Christmas period, that aren’t replaceable — but I thought it’d be easily-replaced, considering I only bought it in November. However, the (lovely) store staff told me they can’t actually make exchanges in-store, as it was bought online — so I must arrange with the website for a refund or replacement.

So off I went, sniffling a little after the bad news, and consoled myself with a cupcake. Well, it was my birthday, after all. I was really sad because it was the only camera I’d armed myself with all day for my birthday, so I had no other way to document my fun — other than with my mobile. The results which, obviously, are quite poor.

The next day, I sent off an email to Lomography’s customer service team:

Hello,

I bought an LC-A+ from the US website in November (however I live in the UK), but it hasn’t been working since the first roll I shot on it. I took it into the Gallery store in central London on Monday, and Liana said there was a problem with the electricals, and that I needed to contact the website to arrange for a return.

Could you please contact me as soon as possible to arrange a return / exchange? I am eager to get back to shooting!

Many thanks, Katherine

My email was then passed to Jozef Fecko, Online Logistics Manager, who emailed from Vienna (where Lomography is HQ-ed):

Hello Katherine,

Have you try to replace the batteries?
We also need a copy of the Invoice/Receipt to arrange an exchange.
Because we don’t have access to the US Orders here in Europe.

Best regards

I replied with:

Hello Jozef,

Yes, I replaced the batteries myself, and then the store manager at the London Gallery Store also changed the batteries — it was her (Liana) who said the electricals had gone and that I must arrange for an exchange.

I will forward the invoice/recipe to you directly after sending this email.

Thanks,

Kat.

Jozef then promptly emailed over the infuriating news:

Hello Kat,

Please visit this site: http://shop.lomography.com/customer-service

Read the Return Policy & Warranty Information passage,

Please add this printed e-mail and a copy of the Invoice to the package, too.

Send only the faulty part (LC-A+ camera), in as small package as possible!

When possible not certified/registered with post (because of high costs), and inside the period from one Week, to the address:

Lomographische AG

Attn: Customer Care

Hollergasse 41

A – 1150 Vienna

When you want a Refund, the goods muss be in a good resell able condition!

Thank you.

Best regards

I’ll save you the hassle of clicking the link, and paste the appropriate instructions on returning a product within the 24-month warranty period here:

Put the item(s) back in the original box, if available. The invoice or receipt must accompany the return.

Please Contact Us for a return authorisation of your purchase. This is absolutely necessary for correct processing of your return.

Send it back to us by the carrier of your choice to the Lomographic office that handled your order. You are responsible for payment of the return shipping cost. Lomography.com will not reimburse return shipping charges on any damaged items after 14 days from the day of purchase.

What followed was my verbose explosion at Jozef (with the bolded sentence I’ve just selected now being the crux of my argument):

Hi Jozef,

The warranty passage says that I’m responsible for the shipping charges, however I don’t think that’s fair. I’ll have to send it recorded delivery to Vienna from the UK, which will cost a lot. Considering three rolls of film I shot on the LC-A+ didn’t turn out (meaning I’ve already paid over £50 for film rolls plus processing costs) due to this problem, it’s galling to then have to pay more money to get it fixed.

When my rolls didn’t turn out, I was told by the London Gallery Store staff that I needed to change batteries. I did that, but the camera still wasn’t working. I then took it into the shop on Monday the 17th — my birthday, I might add, which I was obviously wanting to shoot photos on — and then told it was an issue with the electrics.

You can read of my plight on Gizmodo, where I wrote about the issues I was facing on December 31st: http://gizmodo.com/5721965/shooting-on-film-is-one-of-the-most-frustrating-experiences-yet-i-wont-stop

I’m not trying to be a difficult customer, I just think it’s incredibly unfair I should have to pay for shipping when it’s Lomography’s fault the camera is broken. I have already paid the price of having a broken camera, by the aforementioned processed film — photos I shot over Christmas, which is irreplaceable. When I had a problem with a Panasonic camera some years ago, they actually picked it up from me free of charge, and then repaired it free of cost — because it was under warranty.

It’s already frustrating enough that purchasing products on Lomography’s website cost so much postage as they’re sent from Vienna (it’s one of the reasons I purchased my LC-A+ on the American website), but why can I not return my camera to one of the London stores? It makes no sense at all.

I just want an exchange, and preferably from just walking into the London store. I’ve suffered enough with this camera — and have been a loyal Lomography customer for years, I must add.

Thank you,

Kat.

Jozef replied this morning with this brief email:

Hello Kat,

Because of the high cost, I written to you “When possible not certified/registered with post, and in as small package as possible”.

I can also “refund you” the shipping’s costs with piggi points. 1 piggi = 1 Eur. You can use the piggis on your next Order in our Online shop.

Thank you

Jozef

Piggy points, or “piggi,” as Jozef refers to them, are the store credits which can be redeemed in the shape of film, cameras or accessories on Lomography.com. They hand them out often, in exchange for uploading photos to their site, or in acts of goodwill.

It’s a shame that Lomography is headquartered in Vienna, Austria, meaning it makes no financial sense whatsoever to buy from their website, once you take into account the extortionate rate. Recently they ran a 3 rolls of film for the price of 2 offer — but once you accounted for shipping costs to the UK, it was actually cheaper to just buy them from the store. Or on Amazon. Or eBay. Or anywhere else that sells the film.

I’ve been giving countless piggies for various reasons, but have never used them because of the aforementioned shipping costs, but also because there’s nothing I want to buy on the website (film excluded, obviously). Say it costs me £50 to send my LC-A+ to Vienna, to get repaired/exchanged. What will I spend those £50 worth of piggies on? I’d rather just have my money back.

Or a new camera.

Addendum: I should point out that I really do love Lomography — which is perhaps why I find this so incredibly hurtful and difficult to blog about. I love their products (when they work); their philosophy; their stores; their very-knowledgeable store staff; plus of course their online manager Heidi and PR Linda.

I don’t want to go down the typical journalist route of whingeing to the PRs about my problem and hoping they can make it all better for me, because anyone — regardless of career – should be able to walk into either of the two Lomography stores in London (or the stores around the world, naturally), and exchange my camera there.

I was sold a faulty camera, and I’m going to fight them on this through principle alone.

One of the few photos I snapped before the LC-A+ batteries unknowingly died on me, of a man in Whitstable carrying a pet rabbit. Yes, really.

…I won’t give it up. But my goodness, have I been blubbing away today after getting three rolls of blank film processed at the Lomography store.

I’m pretty peeved actually (though I suppose it’s partly my fault), but halfway through shooting my second-ever roll of film on my new LC-A+, the batteries apparently died. Because I didn’t know this, I continued shooting another two rolls of film…only to receive nothing but blank images. GAH.

Supposedly the LC-A+ batteries are good for around nine rolls of film, and you can tell they need changing when the red light on the left side of the viewfinder disappears. I forgot all about this little test, and merrily went about, shooting on some lovely (and expensive) X-PRO Chrome film over the Christmas period, only to get 2.5 rolls of blank film back.

Sure, I got some photos back from the first of three blank rolls (19, to be exact — one of which was this guy in Whitstable, carrying a pet rabbit around), but I’m not very happy with them as the color and lighting are way-off. Plus, that’s £18 for the three rolls of film down the drain, plus £27 for processing — not to mention all those lost memories. I suppose I’m lucky that Jim was there, shooting in digital, but it’s not the same.

So, a word of warning for new LC-A+ owners: don’t use the GPA76 batteries the camera comes bundled with, as they’re renowned for having a low charge (as I’ve found out after googling around today). I’m off to buy me some SR44 batteries…but not before another little sob and perhaps a stern letter to Lomography. Boo!