How to "see"....

[TheFlyingCamera]

If a photograph doesn't have a story, wouldn't it be the fault of the viewer and not the photographer?

Yes, technically ALL photos have a story, even if the story is "oops, I screwed up and triggered the shutter when the camera was pointed at the floor/the gravel driveway/the sky/the palm of my hand/the lens cap was still on/etc". Where the crux of the matter exists is with intention - when a photographer takes a (non-accidental) photograph, they have an intention. The intention could be anything from something as simple as "I was here" (a so-called "record shot", which accounts for 99.999% of all photographs taken) to a visual meditation on the meaning of life as represented metaphorically by xyz. Viewers are always free to interpret the image however they want to, and no matter the photographer's intention, they will, and they will find things in the image that the photographer NEVER intended. THAT does not represent a fault in the photograph/photographer. The fault occurs when NOBODY looking at the image can see what the photographer intended. This is predicated on the notion that the photograph has an intended audience beyond the photographer. If the person taking the photo never shows the photo to anyone but themselves, then it is not subject to external interpretation, therefore it is always 100% successful in telling its story. But if you are intending to share the image with others, then the failure condition applies - if you photograph a rose because it is beautiful to you, but because of how you photographed it, nobody else sees it as beautiful, then the image fails to communicate your intent. As human intent is rarely unique on an astronomical scale, this event is improbable, but not impossible, so total failure is similarly improbable, so the judgement needs to happen on a graduated scale.

 

[removed account4]

essentially lomo is saying get drunk, drive naked, and pray....

IDK that is my take on it, maybe I am wrong but in the end an exposure on 35mm film is idk 25 or 30 cents ( not counting processing ) might as well push the button
the lomo rules they are just saying stop being constrained by the usual BS/ self doubt, waiting for perfection and just push the button and have a good time because in the end it is supposed to be fun, its just film and perfection doesn't exist... I don't own a lomo but I totally see where they are coming from.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

...

... in the end it is supposed to be fun, its just film and perfection doesn't exist... I don't own a lomo but I totally see where they are coming from.

I get it too. I was just being tongue-in-cheek.

 

[George Mann]

Maybe these Lomo shooters are thinking that they can fix any mistakes in Photoshop (sound familiar?).

 

[Sirius Glass]

...



I get it too. I was just being tongue-in-cheek.

Or tongue-tied-in-cheek?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Maybe these Lomo shooters are thinking that they can fix any mistakes in Photoshop (sound familiar?).

Actually, if you read the propaganda on their website, the philosophy is that there really are no mistakes, and that flaws are cool and beautiful. The serendipity runs deep with them.

 

[George Mann]

Actually, if you read the propaganda on their website, the philosophy is that there really are no mistakes, and that flaws are cool and beautiful. The serendipity runs deep with them.

Which leaves us to imagine what they would do to it when they happen to capture a technically perfect photo.

 

[wyofilm]

Which leaves us to imagine what they would do to it when they happen to capture a technically perfect photo.

Join Photrio.

 

[Vaughn]

Which leaves us to imagine what they would do to it when they happen to capture a technically perfect photo.

And that could be wondered of all of us, also.

My, god, poor Lomo, do we have to have a whipping boy?

 

[George Mann]

My, god, poor Lomo, do we have to have a whipping boy?

I guess I got off on the wrong foot when attempting to be humorous.

 

[wyofilm]

Actually, if you read the propaganda on their website, the philosophy is that there really are no mistakes, and that flaws are cool and beautiful. The serendipity runs deep with them.

When I do venture over to Lomography and scroll though their community photos (https://www.lomography.com/photos?page=1) I'm always greeted with a good number of interesting and creative photos. Not all of course, but enough to hold my attention.

 

[removed account4]

Maybe these Lomo shooters are thinking that they can fix any mistakes in Photoshop (sound familiar?).

and others don't fix mistakes in the darkroom ? what is burning and dodging and using filtration for contrast enhancement on photo paper, and / or using selenium or farmer's reducer. comments like this make me laugh because there are always people who use film who are in complete denial that they have done anything but make a print when they enlarge or make a contact print in a darkroom. Just like people who refuse to acknowledge they are manipulating the latent image by using xyz shutter speed or f-stop on their camera. In the end it really doesn't matter, none of it, except for people who seem to not understand what happens when they make a photographic exposure.

...
I get it too. I was just being tongue-in-cheek.

sorry I didn't get that .. there is a long history on this website of people making snarky comments directed towards people who don't do things they way they "are supposed to".

you know like calling the idea of having fun and making photographs and / enjoying oneself propaganda .. by someone who uses fancy equipment and makes photographs using 19thcentury processes..

the history of photography is full of serendipity from "KODAKING" to Largrigue, to world war2 photographs of the Allied troops landing, to Breton, to Adams to Winograd to the photographs of the falling of the Berlin Wall ... I think it is great that LOMO has their rules to remind people to enjoy themselves instead of always waiting for perfection that doesn't exist.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

... I think it is great that LOMO has their rules to remind people to enjoy themselves instead of always waiting for perfection that doesn't exist.

It is great! Personally, I'm trying to find the happy medium between the Lomo rules, and St. Ansel's rules. I want to be technical enough to pull it off, but careless enough to enjoy it.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Which leaves us to imagine what they would do to it when they happen to capture a technically perfect photo.

I don't think that's going to happen- it's really the antithesis of what they're aiming for. It's a bit like asking what would happen when a dog catches a fish with a rod and reel.

I use several of their cameras (Lomo LCA 120 and Lomo Belair X/6-12) and I use them in ways I think the Lomo crowd would find difficult to grasp because I push them to the limits of their design and do things with them they weren't really intended to do (I am [relatively speaking] precise in their operation and I do things like make palladium prints from the negatives, either as contact prints or digitally enlarged). I've been known to play around with the ISO setting on the meter to accomplish exposure compensation rather than accept an under- or over-exposed negative because that's what the camera gave me (which is part of the Lomo philosophy - bad exposures are good!). But what I do like about them is their lightweight design, and the freeing aspect of shooting with cameras that give me rather simple if not minimal controls, so I just shoot and don't invest lots of time and energy into the technical minutiae. That freeing aspect really helps push my photography, and in a good way, I think. It means I'm paying more attention to composition, framing, subjects, and "the moment" rather than am I using the right f-stop. It's a great exercise, even if you don't want to do that kind of photography as your primary practice.

 

[removed account4]

It is great! Personally, I'm trying to find the happy medium between the Lomo rules, and St. Ansel's rules. I want to be technical enough to pull it off, but careless enough to enjoy it.

I like that, looks like the perfect signature !

 

[Vaughn]

I guess I got off on the wrong foot when attempting to be humorous.

That part was more general.

I think we should save the anti-Lomo type of comments for the digital people -- right?! This was APUG, after all.

 

[Craig75]

I guess I should amend my title, since it's less about seeing, and more about realizing.

Just bracket yr shots for a while. That way you can chill and take yr shot and one of the three will be close to what you wanted when you look at them afterwards. Soon get to know what you want to do for a specific shot by seeing the results of previous shots.

I reality whatever settings you choose on your camera though the work starts with the darkroom / lightroom not in camera

 

[MattKing]

It is great! Personally, I'm trying to find the happy medium between the Lomo rules, and St. Ansel's rules. I want to be technical enough to pull it off, but careless enough to enjoy it.

There is a word that was bandied around higher up in the thread that may be part of the problem.
It is "fault".
If you are setting yourself a task - trying to accomplish something particular - it is probably okay to assign fault of some sort if you don't succeed in doing what you intended.
If, however, you are trying to create satisfying and interesting photographs, it is better to avoid words like fault, failure and blame. Success can be measured relatively, but not absolutely.
And whatever you do, avoid Saints and absolute rules!

 

[Vaughn]

... That freeing aspect really helps push my photography, and in a good way, I think. It means I'm paying more attention to composition, framing, subjects, and "the moment" rather than am I using the right f-stop. It's a great exercise, even if you don't want to do that kind of photography as your primary practice.

People work differently. But what you described is exactly how I approach everything from my Diana up to 11x14. In my work, that attention to the moment is there, that is part of what my photographs are about. Once it is seen and I make the decision to create an image on film, does it matter if it takes just the act of bringing the Diana up to my eye and pushing a button (loaded with out-dated Tech-Pan), or 30 minutes to set up the camera "paying more attention to composition, framing, subjects" and expose a sheet of 11x14 (fresh FP4+)?

No -- both contain the same amount of spontaneity, the same instant of creation, the same love of the light that is falling at the moment. But changing cameras/formats and so forth is good for our brains (creativity) -- not because any percieved qualities (or lack of them) of the cameras/format, but because of the grooves our brains tend to fall into.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I wouldn't feel right crticising Lomo. They're having fun. They're using film.

 

[wyofilm]

I wouldn't feel right crticising Lomo. They're having fun. They're using film.

Bingo!

 

[MattKing]

Granville Island is an interesting location in Vancouver, with a large market, a lot of artists shops and studios, a marina, a hotel, until recently an Arts school, some industrial buildings and a fair number of shops. One of the shops that caters to the tourist trade used to have a fairly extensive collection of Lomography wares, right under the shop's sign that read "No Photography Allowed". I always wanted to sneak a photo of that juxtaposition, but was never able to do so (the shop was dark and crowded).

 

[Sirius Glass]

I wouldn't feel right crticising Lomo. They're having fun. They're using film.

and that means they are supporting Kodak, Ilford, Rollei, ...

 

[ChristopherCoy]

And whatever you do, avoid Saints and absolute rules!

That's sometimes hard to do when you have a mind that works the way mine does. I want to do it, and I can, but then I also want to know WHY things happen when I do them. Like I said, technical enough to pull it off, but careless enough to enjoy it.

 

[wyofilm]

and that means they are supporting Kodak, Ilford, Rollei, ...

In a big way, for which I am grateful!