<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Gizmodo Australia &#187; old tech</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/tags/old-tech/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au</link>
	<description>the Gadget Guide &#124; Technology and consumer electronics news and reviews</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:09:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Lubitel 166+ Improves On Classic Lomographer Camera</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/lubitel_166_improves_on_classic_lomographer_camera-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/lubitel_166_improves_on_classic_lomographer_camera-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gizmodo US Edition</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cameras]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[film]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gadgets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lubitel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[old tech]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/lubitel_166_improves_on_classic_lomographer_camera-2.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ I&#8217;ve never been enough of a photography purist to bemoan the switch to digital, but if you&#8217;ve really missed shooting film on a fully manual machine, the folks at Lomography have released an upgrade to the classic 1970s camera, the Lubitel. Called the Lubitel +166, it keeps its old-fashioned looks but adds a couple [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/10/lubitel1661.jpg" style="display:block;float:none;" /> I&#8217;ve never been enough of a photography purist to bemoan the switch to digital, but if you&#8217;ve really missed shooting film on a fully manual machine, the folks at Lomography have released an upgrade to the classic 1970s camera, the Lubitel. Called the Lubitel +166, it keeps its old-fashioned looks but adds a couple of (non-digital) upgrades. Even if you&#8217;re not a film fanatic, it&#8217;s a really pretty camera to ogle over.</p>
<p><!-- Gawker Tags/Categories: film camera, 35mm film, camera, film, lomographer camera, lomography, lubitel, lubitel 166+, professional camera, redscale film --><br />
<span id="more-310913"></span>
<p>The original Lubitel was cast in plastic and had a top down viewfinder, enclosed by a pop-up metal hood. Users composed their images by peering down and adjusting the focus knob. The new Lubitel adds the ability to use 35mm, an endless panorama option, and closer and zone focus. The cheapest camera package Lomography is offering includes the camera, 6 rolls of B&#038;W film and 6 rolls of <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/09/redscale_film_shows_analogue_photography_is_not_dead_yet_thankfully-2.html">Redscale</a>, and costs $US350. [<a href="http://shop.lomography.com/shop/main.php?cat=Lomographic_Cameras&#038;pro=llp">Lomography</a> via <a href="http://www.geekalerts.com/new-lomo-lubitel-166-camera/">Geek Alerts</a>]</p>
<p><a name="galleryplaceholder" id="galleryplaceholder"></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/lubitel_166_improves_on_classic_lomographer_camera-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Latest New Yorker Cover was Created in Photoshop 3.0 on Mac OS 7</title>
		<link>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/latest_inew_yorkeri_cover_was_created_in_photoshop_30_on_mac_os_7-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/latest_inew_yorkeri_cover_was_created_in_photoshop_30_on_mac_os_7-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Frucci</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gadgets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[old tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[photoshop]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/latest_inew_yorkeri_cover_was_created_in_photoshop_30_on_mac_os_7-2.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You probably assume that most major magazine covers are designed on top-of-the-line systems with the most advanced software available. Most of the time, you&#8217;d be right. But this week&#8217;s New Yorker cover was created by Bob Staake on some pretty ancient technology: Mac OS 7 and Photoshop 3.0. Mac OS 7 was released in 1991 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/10/staakenycovesr.jpg" class="left" />You probably assume that most major magazine covers are designed on top-of-the-line systems with the most advanced software available. Most of the time, you&#8217;d be right. But this week&#8217;s New Yorker cover was created by Bob Staake on some pretty ancient technology: Mac OS 7 and Photoshop 3.0. Mac OS 7 was released in 1991 and Photoshop 3.0 was released in 1994. Good lord.</p>
<p><!-- Gawker Tags/Categories: ancient tech, clips, new yorker, photoshop, software --><br />
<span id="more-309206"></span>
<p><object width="494" height="399"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VEh4SWTbgU8&#038;color1=0xb1b1b1&#038;color2=0xcfcfcf&#038;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VEh4SWTbgU8&#038;color1=0xb1b1b1&#038;color2=0xcfcfcf&#038;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="494" height="399"></embed></object>The cover is simple, yes, but I don&#8217;t really see the benefit to using such outdated tech. I mean, wouldn&#8217;t running the latest software be easier? But hey, power to him. It&#8217;s pretty cool to see such old tech still in use by such big names. [<a href="http://www.bobstaake.com/staakenyer.html">Bob Staake</a> via <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2008/10/06/the-making-of-bob-st.html">Boing Boing</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/10/latest_inew_yorkeri_cover_was_created_in_photoshop_30_on_mac_os_7-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
