Only in the world of Lomography!

[Huss]

Just got an email from Lomography.
Apparently they have a batch of Metropolis film (which I love) that has a production flaw that leaves a line across some of the film.
What to do, what to do? Sell it as a feature at a discounted price!

https://shop.lomography.com/en/lomochrome-metropolis-watermark-35mm/?fresh

Freakin' genius!

lol, I love tomography! And no, I don't want it cuz I like my film w/o random lines.

 

[robert blu]

...

Freakin' genius!

lol, I love tomography! And no, I don't want it cuz I like my film w/o random lines.

It's a special marketing move! I love lomography too...but with no lines please!

 

[retinax]

This is a hoax, right? Some hacker-photo-geek satire collective has taken over their website, yes?

 

[rangefinderlove123]

i am speechless

 

[Timmyjoe]

This reminds me of the first time I heard about the Diana camera thirty years ago. A female photographer friend had just discovered the soft, blurry, vignetted images it produces and was encouraging me to put aside my Canon F-1n and take up the Diana. I was like, "So purposely create blurry, heavily vignetted images, instead of trying to make sharp, properly exposed, properly processed images?" I was baffled that the marketing pitch was on par with "Make worse pictures, that's how you create art!"

Glad to see that in 30 years, Lomography hasn't changed their business plan.

Best,
-Tim

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

They're slacking, they should charge more!

 

[emraphoto]

reminds me of the M8

 

[Corran]

This reminds me of the first time I heard about the Diana camera thirty years ago. A female photographer friend had just discovered the soft, blurry, vignetted images it produces and was encouraging me to put aside my Canon F-1n and take up the Diana. I was like, "So purposely create blurry, heavily vignetted images, instead of trying to make sharp, properly exposed, properly processed images?" I was baffled that the marketing pitch was on par with "Make worse pictures, that's how you create art!"

Glad to see that in 30 years, Lomography hasn't changed their business plan.

Best,
-Tim

Making sharp pictures ain't necessarily art either...

 

[Huss]

They're slacking, they should charge more!

Yes! Especially since it is a limited run.

reminds me of the M8

And ouch!

 

[benlees]

I'm not sure I'd call it genius as this is just an example of what many business' do to get rid of 'imperfect' stock.


If they charged extra, and people actually bought it, then perhaps that might be something closer to exceptional.

 

[aizan]

$12 for a roll of defective film...

this is the kind of thing that gives lomography a bad name.

 

[Huss]

$12 for a roll of defective film...

this is the kind of thing that gives lomography a bad name.

Why? It is cheaper than the regular Metropolis and they are calling it out.
So it is up to the buyer whether they want to play along. If they do, they are getting it at a discount.

Remember when Kodak had that backing paper issue on their 120 film?
They kept on selling it for full price and kept their pie holes closed about it until enough users complained.
THAT is what gives them a bad name.

 

[aizan]

Lomography developed a bad rap in the early 2000s for charging a lot of money for low quality products and marketing it as lo-fi analog tech that makes artistic photos easy. They've done a lot of cool things over the years, but this is a step backwards.

On the other hand, selling a batch of defective film at a small discount to knowing consumers is not the worst thing that could have happened. But rather than selling it, the most obvious good solution would have been to donate it or sell it for the cost of shipping.

 

[K14]

Huss,

I wouldn't limit that to Metropolis film. Shooting some night shots with my Olympus Pen in Bakurocho Tokyo produced these lines. Some suggested it was an airplane but it shows in more than one shot.

Lomo Color Negative 100

 

[giganova]

And its only twice as much as Tri-X! 😀

 

[Huss]

On the other hand, selling a batch of defective film at a small discount to knowing consumers is not the worst thing that could have happened. But rather than selling it, the most obvious good solution would have been to donate it or sell it for the cost of shipping.

Yes, they should give it away for free....
They are selling it for a discount, stating exactly what is wrong with it but you think it should be free?

You do know they are a business, right? Paying employees?

 

[Huss]

Huss,

I wouldn't limit that to Metropolis film. Shooting some night shots with my Olympus Pen in Bakurocho Tokyo produced these lines. Some suggested it was an airplane but it shows in more than one shot.

Lomo Color Negative 100

That looks like damage from the camera or the processor. It could also be a scanning line. Thedarkroom.com used to return scans like that (which is one reason among many why I never use them anymore)
I've had that happen many times, with all brands of film. Stopped after I stopped using Costco to develop my film...
(they no longer offer that service anymore)

 

[HHPhoto]

Why? It is cheaper than the regular Metropolis and they are calling it out.
So it is up to the buyer whether they want to play along. If they do, they are getting it at a discount.

Remember when Kodak had that backing paper issue on their 120 film?
They kept on selling it for full price and kept their pie holes closed about it until enough users complained.
THAT is what gives them a bad name.

I agree.
I am not a fan of lomography in general, never have been. I still see some of their business decisions very critical.

But not here. They honestly say it is defective film. They show the defect. They offer a discount.
Customers know what they get. Nobody is forced to buy the film.

Probably there is pure necessity to sell it. The financial loss of scrapping it totally would be huge, and could danger the existence of a relatively small company like Lomography (and maybe the producer of this film, because Lomography is buying their films from real film manufacturers).
Film production is a low-margin business.
If a production batch failed the financial consequences are serious.

I find their current honest communication to their customers with this film much much better what for example JCH is doing with his 'Street Pan': Selling very long expired old film with high base fog and about two stops less real effective film speed at very high prices. And not telling the customers the truth. That is cheating.

Cheers, Jan