The Smena Symbol: the Lomo that Lomography forgot
Well, not forgotten. But let’s face it, the marketing geniuses at Lomography haven’t exactly promoted the Lomo Smena Symbol. Its price on ebay reflects this. A brand new Lomo LC-A+ from lomography.com can set you back almost £300. Ouch! But you’re really buying a brand. You’re buying a brilliant piece of marketing.

The Smena Symbol (and it’s relative the 8M) costs a fraction of the price of an LC-A+. £20 should get you a decent one. Admittedly it’s bigger, clunkier, and not in any way automatic. But it is a Lomo. Really, it’s a Lomo!
Unfortunately it also has a major disadvantage for Lomographers: it actually takes pretty decent photos. Oh dear.
Manual
Everything on this camera is manual, but it manages to make itself sort of easy to use with a cleverish symbol system. Hence the name. You set the aperture without really realising it by setting the film ISO setting. 250 ISO is the maximum speed, and sets the aperture to f/16. Meanwhile setting the shutter speed involves nice little sun/cloud symbols. Sun equals 1/250sec, very cloudy equals 1/15sec.
How do I know what all these settings equate to? Weirdly both the ISO and symbol settings also tell you what aperture and shutter speed you’re using. Do you really care? Isn’t this camera meant to be taking the complexity out of photography? Presumably a camera geek helped design the Smena Symbol, and they just couldn’t resist making sure there was just a bit of technical geekery in there somewhere.
Build
Being mostly plastic, the Smena Symbol is nice and lightweight. Not as light as a Diana or Holga, but not too bad. So you won’t be all that bothered carrying it around, if like me it tends to get used as a backup camera to a digital camera. But because of the Symbol’s size, you won’t fit it into anything other than a very large coat pocket. I don’t know quite why it’s so big. It’s not like it uses 120 film, or is full of complex electronics and gadgetry. But there you go. Soviet engineering.
No toy
So on balance the people at Lomography perhaps had a point in not promoting the Smena Symbol. It doesn’t have any of the ease of use or compactness of an LC-A, and doesn’t have the weird toy camera charm of a Diana or Holga. It does have a certain charm all its own however, but at the end of the day it’s basically a cheap, functional, bulky Soviet camera which takes reasonable photos.
Lomography Diana Mini
I’ll admit it: I fall for every single Apple and Lomography marketing trick. They never fail to reel me in with their cunning promises of life-changingly cool gadgets at exorbitant prices. Somehow the price-tag always seems worth it though. You’re buying something more than the physical thing. You’re buying the design, the packaging, the overall brand, blah, blah. Yes, we all know that.
The Diana Mini is the little brother of the legendary Diana camera, and is yet another triumph of Lomographic marketing and design. What’s basically a plastic toy camera which should sell for about a tenner on a good day retails for around £40. Even worse it seems to be aimed mainly at the Japanese and Korean teenage girl market. I’m a man. I’m 42. I’m not Japanese or Korean. Why am I even writing about this camera? Help!
It is worth pointing out that a lot of photographers hate everything that Lomography stands for with a vengeance. But a lot of people love it. I’m not going to get rants in my pants about all this right now.
So is the Diana Mini worth buying?
Yes. If you like playing with film cameras of all sorts and enjoy the lo-fi effects these sorts of toy cameras give (and have £40 or so to spare). You don’t have to be a teenager, or Korean. Then a resounding Yes. Here are the reasons why I think that.
Build quality
The Diana Mini is a small, plastic camera. It weighs almost nothing. If you keep dropping things then this is the kind of thing you’d not want to drop. Buy it and don’t drop it.
Otherwise build quality is surprisingly solid for a plastic camera.
Image quality
Looking at photos on stock photography sites is a depressing experience. Technically very good. Technically very dull. These photos suck all the joy out of photography.
Luckily no self-respecting stock photo site will go anywhere near your Diana Mini photos. They want the kind of sharp, perfectly-focused, perfectly-lit photos that you’ll never get from a Diana Mini. If you like taking high-quality perfectly-exposed photos of yachts, flowers, animals, trees, fruit, semi-naked muscular men holding tiny babies, etc. then don’t get a Diana Mini. You’ll just hate it.
The whole ethos of toy cameras like this is to have fun taking interesting photos.
Half or square
The Diana mini is unique (I think) in its ability not just to take square format photos on 35mm film, but to be able to switch between this and half-frame format. You can switch between the two formats as many times as you want on a film, although as I discovered this can get very confusing when you’re processing and printing your photos.
Focus
Focus? Bah humbug! The focus ring is fiddly and none too easy to change in a hurry (I much prefer the little lever you get in Lomo LC-As.) The fact that the focus ring sticks on the 4m-infinity setting suggests this is the default setting which you can pretty much keep the camera set on all the time. Which begs the question: why bother at all?
Usability
The Diana Mini is easy to use once you’ve realised that absolutely spot-on exposure really isn’t all that important. Take photos of something interesting.
There are two shutter settings: ‘N’ for normal (1/60sec) and ‘B’ for… erm… bulb. Of course. The name comes from one of those freaky accidents of history, but it means the shutter stays open as long as you hold the lever down. A second or so is fine for indoors.
There are two aperture settings: cloudy weather and sunny weather. To be honest there’s not much difference between these (one f-stop). As with the focus ring: why bother?
The Mini’s instruction booklet suggests 100 ISO film for a sunny day, and 400 for a gloomy day. Great if you live somewhere permanently sunny and happy (the two are apparently linked) like California. Not much use if you live in the UK. Oh well.
Developing and printing
A very major issue with this camera is what to do with the film once you’ve taken your photos. Taking them down to your local automated film processing lab may work. Probably not. Film processing is becoming less and less common, and processing/printing half-frame or square format 35mm film is almost certainly going to be beyond the cababilities of a standard high street lab. There are still some places which specialise in this kind of niche film photography, such as West End Cameras in London or Digitalab in Newcastle. Black & white home processing/printing is an option for some people of course.
Flash and other bits
The Mini also has a mount for a tripod. A tripod?!? Why would anyone ever want to use a tripod with this camera? It also has a remote shutter release connection, presumably so you can make sure you don’t wobble your tripod-enabled Mini as you take a long-exposure shot.
Slightly more useful is the flash connector, which lets you put a Diana F+ flash on the camera. I have one of these, but I don’t have any example photos yet. You can even insert coloured filters over the flash to get weird Lomo effects. But in all other repects it’s just an oversized flash.
Golden Half
I think it’s worth mentioning that the Diana Mini has at least one rival in the miniature toy camera world: the Golden Half. This is made by the Japanese Superheadz people, and takes half-frame photos. I don’t have this camera, but by all accounts it’s about the same price and size, but a little more robust. Importantly it can’t switch to full-frame square photos like the Mini.
Summary
I like the Diana Mini. It’d be lovely if you could buy one for a bit less money than it typically sells for, but there you go. Isn’t that true of everything?
It tries – and succeeds – in replicating the epic Diana camera in 35mm format rather than 6cmx6cm 120 film. In theory this opens up the world of the Diana to mere mortals. But 35mm in square or split-frame format is not really going to be any easier to process than 120, so in practice using this camera will take as much dedication as the original Diana.
If you want an easy photographic experience just get a nice point and shoot digital camera for £100 or so. The Diana Mini offers a nice way to go somewhere different. But you will have to put in a bit of time, effort, and money to get there.
Diana Mini square format photo
Amazon Kindle: how I read in the bath
I love my Amazon Kindle. It cost £109 and for that has changed the way I read. It’s lightweight, slim, and tactile. The battery life is amazing, mainly because the Kindle doesn’t need much power. Its display is not backlit, making it appear far more like paper, and therefore easier on the eye.
It has one main use: for reading books. To my mind it does that one thing brilliantly.
An advantage of the Kindle over real books is that you can carry hundreds of books with you more or less wherever you go. Notice I said ‘more or less’. Let’s face it, for those of us who enjoy a good soak in a lovely hot, deep bath, reading in the bath is part of the ritual. Books don’t mind if they get a bit soggy. Even if you drop the whole book in the bath (as I’ve done a few times) they still seem to dry out. And if they really are ruined, well it’s only a few quid lost.
Sadly water and electrical things don’t mix so well. But to me the Kindle seemed somehow robust enough that it didn’t seem implausible to be able to read it in the bath if it were protected in some way. I’d never, never even consider allowing an iPad anywhere near water. There are in fact waterproof cases and bags available commercially for Kindles, but when you think about it these are little more than (semi)waterproof bags. They don’t need to be completely waterproof, just splashproof.
So that’s when I thought about using a standard zip-lock freezer bag. Ok I wouldn’t want to read my Kindle underwater with one, but it’d at least be splashproof. Below is a photo of my Kindle, with a freezer bag I’ve used a few times for reading in the bath.
Nothing special, just a zip-lock freezer bag. Oh, and I made sure it had at least one side completely see-through: freezer bag manufacturers have a habit of printing logos etc on their bags. Fine for freezing food, not fine for reading through.
One of my concerns was actually condensation on the inside, not water on the outside. However this didn’t seem to be a problem at all. I just tried to get most of the air out of the bag before I sealed it. I also put a small wad of paper tissue in the bag with the Kindle to help absorb any condensed water that might collect. However I’ve never noticed any dampness at all inside, so the paper is just a precaution.
So there you go. That’s how I got to reading my Kindle in the bath.
Of course, normal disclaimers apply. I’ve outlined how I read my Kindle in my bath with my freezer bags. If you want to try it with your own Kindle and freezer bags (and in your own bath!), well it’s a free world… But you do so completely at your own risk in the knowledge that if it all goes horribly wrong you’ll have to fork out £109/£149 for a new Kindle. And much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
It was a risk I thought worth taking. I found that by exercising some caution and trying to keep the Kindle+freezer bag as dry as was reasonable, I was finally able to read my Kindle in the bath.
Hoorah!
candle and coffee jug
Picasso and the FED-2 (B4)
The FED-2 is a solid Soviet rangefinder camera built during the 50s and 60s. In an age of tiny digital cameras which employ magic to allow you to take thousands of perfectly exposed photos of your cat, there’s something reassuring about occasionally dipping into a past where cameras were real, mechanical objects that mere mortals could just about understand. Taking a photo of your cat was a challenging, artistic experience.
The great thing about these old cameras, and FEDs in particular, is that there are so few moving parts that almost nothing can go wrong, and as an extra insurance they built the things to last anyway.
Even better FEDs are pretty cheap. £20 or £30 on eBay should get you a reasonable FED from some bloke in Eastern Europe, where they abound. When you consider that these were pretty reasonable copies of Leica rangefinders of the period, and that these will set you back hundreds or even thousands, FEDs really do seem like great value. And you’re not buying into that whole Leica inflated-price nonsense, so you can actually take your camera out its case and use it without fear of damaging something close to a museum piece.
Below is a photo of my FED-2. It’s a B4 with a blue case. Weirdly they decided to colour their cameras in black, blue, green, and red. Don’t ask me why, because the colours are pretty dull. But I guess in the exciting world of the late 50s Soviet Union these colours must’ve seemed pretty wacky. It dates from c. 1957 and still takes good photos.
OK it doesn’t have a light meter, and is totally manual. But if you want to take photos – really take photos – then what better way? A great way to learn the art of photography, certainly. Guesstimating light levels (or using the Sunny 16 rule) based on your film type, shutter speed, and aperture give you a really good feel for what you’re actually doing when you take a photo, and help you really focus on your surroundings, your subject, light quality…
Of course, you make lots of mistakes. Digital photography takes care of stuff for you much more. True, you can learn very easily on a digital camera because you can see instantly that your photo is crap. Maybe the learning process with an old manual camera is slower, but somehow more rewarding. Or am I just getting old and weird?
The name “FED”, by the way, comes from F. E. Dzerzhinsky, the man in charge of what later became the KGB. Scary stuff. And by all accounts conditions at the factory in the Ukraine where FEDs were made were not good at all. Not good at all.
But hey, we all buy cheap goods made in the sweatshops of the far east. I own an iPhone after all… So to the uber-cool liberal thinkers and artists of the pre- and post-war eras, “Soviet” often meant something more positive than we understand today. They could brush aside the small details of the crushing brutality and unfairness of the Soviet regime with the broad sweep of Ideology. It’s therefore likely that Picasso, famously interested in photography as art, made a point by owning Soviet cameras such as the FED-2.
Here’s a photo of him with a FED-2. So there you go. He owned a FED.

I’m not sure who took the photo, or when, or quite why (two watches? Making a point about something I guess…) But that’s definitely a FED-2 round his neck, despite some people on some flickr forums I’ve seen thinking it might be a Leica.
Even better, I’m pretty confident in saying it’s a FED-2 B4.
Nerdy? Well, ok. But as far as my nerdiness can tell, Picasso’s camera is identical to the one I have. And that seems a pretty cool fact to me.
The key things to look out for in a FED-2 B are:
- case with two buttons
- flash sync socket just to the side of the lens
- Industar-26M lens
You can see all these clearly in my comparison photos below.
Unfortunately identifying it as a B4 rather than any old B is trickier, because you can only tell for sure from the serial number, and the style of shutter speed dial. But I’m sure it must be a B4 because of the Industar lens.
For those of you interested in such things, I found the sovietcams.com site particularly useful for identifying Soviet cameras.
The comparison
Building augmented reality layars
Layar is a free augmented reality (AR) app for iPhone and Android. Unlike other apps which fulfil a specific AR need (from finding bars near you selling Stella, to shooting your friends with lasers) Layar opens things up to let developers build their own AR views and run them in the Layar AR “browser”. It looks like the image below, which shows a wikipedia layer.
AR Browser
And yes, “browser” is kind of an apt description, because when you build a Layar layer (someone should really think of better terminology than this!) what you’re really doing is providing a webservice which gets displayed in a particular way.
Building a simple layer is actually pretty easy if you have some web development knowledge, such as PHP and MySQL. In fact, if you’re ever built a simple webservice before then all you need to build a simple layer is which parameters need to be passed in, and what the output should look like. The Layar people have provided a tutorial to help you if web development isn’t your main thing, and there’s some sample code there too. I found their wiki and tutorials useful for getting started, but in my opinion their PHP code samples are a little hacky.
Developer site
So, first you need to register as a developer. This takes just a minute. Once done, you need to start building your layer definition. This sets things like the URL of your webservice, and the name of the layer. You can also use the developer area to test your layers before submitting them for publication. Again, documentation is provided. But I found it all pretty straightforward and easy to work out anyway (they could do with some better web designers though!)
Webservice
Now the key part which makes the whole thing tick. The webservice. This can be hosted on your own site, although 3rd party sites exist, such as hoppala.eu, which in effect provide the webservice hosting for you. To be honest the hoppala service seemed great at first sight – you give it the url of a google map and it does the rest – but after various unsuccessful attempts at sending them my google map url, I gave up. Your webservice needs to provide a few key pieces of data about your layer. Basically the geo-coordinates of each point-of-interest in your layer, and a title and description for each.
Google Map
Getting geo-coordinates might sound scary, but if you’ve ever made a google map, you’ll have those to hand. If you haven’t made a google map, then it really is just an easy drag and drop exercise. There’s a little RSS button at the top right of your map where you can get the url of the RSS feed of your map. This contains all the coordinates, as well as the titles and descriptions you’ll have given when you were building up your map.
It would be cool if the Layar people would accept these RSS feeds. That way you’d not have to do anything else. To me this is the biggest oversight of the whole system. The google RSS really does contain everything they need, but hey…
OK so you just have to accept that you’re going to have to take that google map RSS feed, and modify it to put it in the format the Layar people need. In effect you’re creating a chained, 2-step, webservice. This is where your PHP and webservice skills come in.
Input data
When the Layar “browser” calls your webservice, it provides three GET parameters. The user’s current longitude, latitude, and the radius the user wants to be bothered with around them. Your webservice code therefore will need to capture these paremeters and use them to generate your output. Once again, it escapes me why Layar sends this data to your webservice, rather than doing the necessary calculations in the app itself. I can only guess it’s to do with performance issues.
SimpleXML
What I did was use PHP’s built in SimpleXML features to pull the google map RSS feed apart, and take out the longitude, latitude, title, and description data out.
Doing this is pretty easy. You call something like this:
$xml = simplexml_load_file('http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?.......');
and go through each point-of-interest with a loop like this:
foreach ($xml->channel->item as $entry) {....
Scary maths bit
Remember those 3 input parameters? Longitude, latitude, and radius. The reason they’re passed to your webservice is that Layar needs to tell your webservice not to bother sending irrelevant results back to them. Suppose the user only wants results in a 1km radius. Layar doesn’t want a mass of data covering most of England. It’d just be too slow.
Soooooo…. you’re going to have to do some scary maths to calculate distance from a point. All that nasty trigonometry stuff you did at school.
Don’t panic! The Layar people provide you with the formula. In case you can’t find it, here it is:
$distance = (((acos(sin(($value['lat'] * pi() / 180)) * sin(($lat * pi() / 180))+cos(($value['lat'] * pi() / 180)) * cos(($lat * pi() / 180)) * cos(($value['lon'] - $lon) * pi() / 180))) * 180 / pi()) * 60 * 1.1515 * 1.609344 * 1000);
where $value['lat'] and $value['lon'] are the user’s coordinates, and $lat and $lon are the coordinates of the point-of-interest.
You just need to compare this $distance value with the user’s radius GET parameter sent by Layar.
JSON output
Your final output, then, is nearly ready. Build a PHP array containing the layer name and a list of the points-of-interest. Each point should have coordinates, a distance from the user, and other data like title, description, image URL, etc. Full details on these can be found in the Layar wiki and tutorials.
The last thing you need to do is make sure your webservice output is in JSON format. In PHP this is too easy: just call json_encode() with your array as the parameter.
Test and publish
Once your webservice is up and running, go and test it from the Layar developer area. I haven’t as yet published a layer, but it seems to involve a fairly straightforward submission process.
One cool (although thinking about it pretty essential) feature is that you can test your layer in the Layar app itself. Once you have a developer account you get an extra “test” tab in the app. This lists all your own layers, each of which will function exactly as though it’s been published.
Summary
The Layar augmented reality app is a really nice idea, and one which allows developers to build their own layers relatively easily. You do, however, have to be a developer with some knowledge of webservices and familiarity with APIs. It’s just a shame the Layar people didn’t think to allow very small-scale layers pulled directly from, say, Google Map RSS feeds. The only reason I think they’ve not done this is for performance reasons. But if all you want to do is build a layer with a couple of dozen points of interest in a limited area, the whole radius/distance calculation thing seems a waste of effort on the developer’s part.
On the plus side, once you’ve developed one simple layer it’s incredibly easy to modify your code to build other layers. In fact, all you really need do is pass in a different Google Maps RSS URL.
Another plus, of course, is that Layar removes the need for developers to get involved in actually building their own iPhone augmented reality apps. A far scarier prospect than that distance calculation.
iPhone dev image processing quirks
I had a lot of problems getting image processing to work properly on the iPhone. This isn’t so much because the image processing I was doing was very tricky; it was more because of some apparent quirks in how the iPhone works its image orientation.
Basically it seems that if you take a photo in portrait ie ‘up’ the iPhone thinks you’ve taken the photo in landscape ie ‘right’. Weird. But that’s how it seems to work.
In fact, no matter which way round you hold your iPhone, it always thinks the photo was taken 90 degrees clockwise from what it actually was.
In my app, I’m taking the raw image as a UIImage and converting it to a CGImage to do various things at the pixel level, and converting it back to a UIImage. As part of this I’m now therefore having to rotate the CGImage round, using code like this:
// iphone held upif (uiimage.imageOrientation == UIImageOrientationRight) {context1=CGBitmapContextCreate(m_imageData, m_width, m_height, 8, m_width*sizeof(uint32_t), colorSpace1, kCGBitmapByteOrder32Little|kCGImageAlphaNoneSkipLast);CGContextSetInterpolationQuality(context1, kCGInterpolationHigh);CGContextSetShouldAntialias(context1, YES);CGContextTranslateCTM(context1, m_width/2, m_height/2);CGContextRotateCTM(context1, -M_PI_2);CGContextTranslateCTM(context1, -m_height/2, -m_width/2);CGContextDrawImage(context1, CGRectMake(0, 0, m_height, m_width), [uiimage CGImage]);}
This first detects which way round the iPhone thinks the photo is so we can do the right kind of rotation. It then uses CGContextTranslateCTM and CGContextRotateCTM to rotate and shift the image around in the image context space, before drawing the image into that space. Note that CGContextTranslateCTM is needed because CGContextRotateCTM rotates an image about its top left corner, not its centre. We therefore need to shift the image around if we’re ever going to see it.
The even weirder thing is that all this image rotation is unnecessary if you allow users to crop the image just after they’ve taken a photo, using the iPhone’s image picker. Obviously Apple built this kind of functionality into the image picker. The only problem with that route (which I used in my earlier Phlomo app) is that you end up with a rather small, poor quality image, and an extra unnecessary user step.
Twitmo iPhone app
I’ve been working on an iphone app called Twitmo which lets you take a bog-standard iPhone photo, and turns it into something a bit more interesting. You can then write a tweet by tapping on the image, and send the whole thing off to Twitter. Well, to Twitpic actually, but it’s effectively the same thing.
The philosophy behind Twitmo is the same as my earlier app, Phlomo: take quick Lomo style snaps of whatever tickles your fancy, and upload them quickly and easily to a social networking site. In this case Twitpic and Twitter.
It’s been a long, hard fight getting this app ready, mainly because of problems with image processing. Basically the iPhone has a very weird way of knowing which way up a photo should be. If you want to do real image processing this creates real headaches. I got round it in Phlomo by letting the user use the iPhone’s built-in crop, just after a photo’s taken. I don’t know how this fixed the problem, but it did. But a number of people complained that the resulting image was small and poor quality.
So, with a lot of late-night trial and error I finally got the image processing sorted.
Uploading an image to twitpic is easy. Although I’m slightly concerned that twitter are phasing in OAuth, but twitpic have made no noises about when they’re falling in line with twitter. I guess sometime later this year I may have more coding to do…

















