Lomography at 20

[CGW]

Personally, I don't see anything in this aside from an attempt to "brand" film photography. The formula? B-list film+cutesy packaging+big mark-up=Lomography! And don't forget the ridiculously priced cameras...

BBC News - Did the Lomo camera save film photography?

 

[artobest]

It's film! How can that be bad?

 

[Pioneer]

It's film! How can that be bad?

I have to agree. I think that we have to be willing to accept that there will be forms of photography that seem to make little sense to us, but are attracting new blood to the world of film. And I suspect this has probably been true of photography for a long time. There is the Holga/Diana Lomography group, the Digital group and a more traditional film photographer, and probably many more variations than any of us can count. Back in Ansel's day there was conflict between the realist and the pictorialist, and probably several other smaller conflicts that didn't get as much press. I think that at this point, with film seemingly having such a precarious position in the market, we need to be happy that anyone is willing to work with film, even though what they are doing does interest us. Right now Lomography is doing a great job of marketing film and getting young people involved.

 

[CGW]

I have to agree. I think that we have to be willing to accept that there will be forms of photography that seem to make little sense to us, but are attracting new blood to the world of film. And I suspect this has probably been true of photography for a long time. There is the Holga/Diana Lomography group, the Digital group and a more traditional film photographer, and probably many more variations than any of us can count. Back in Ansel's day there was conflict between the realist and the pictorialist, and probably several other smaller conflicts that didn't get as much press. I think that at this point, with film seemingly having such a precarious position in the market, we need to be happy that anyone is willing to work with film, even though what they are doing does interest us. Right now Lomography is doing a great job of marketing film and getting young people involved.

Sorry but I'm not seeing Lomography and its self-regarding advertising doing much. Toronto where I live is a great photography city--lots of camera/photo supply stores, good labs, colleges and art schools with photography programs, a strong camera club community--but I don't see much action at the local Lomography store. The reaction I get from 20-somethings with film cameras when asked about Lomography ranges from "you're kidding, right?" "I bought a Holga but got a Spotmatic/Nikon FE/Canon AE-1/Yashica TLR/ Olympus OM-2/or whatever to "film and processing are too pricey to waste on a toy camera" or "Lomography film is a rip-off."

Young photographers I know and support are merrily strip-mining the piles of old gear left in the wake of the digital tsunami. They shoot with smartphones and use Instagram and Hipstamic if they want what Lomography supposedly delivers. They're liking b&w most of all, especially once they find out how straightforward and affordable DIY processing can be. Few--if any--got into film photography through Lomography.
I still consider it a lame attempt to "brand" film photography. No one's fooled.

 

[desertfotog]

1947

I was shooting what they now call "Lomo" in 1947, on 127 film. Remember "history is lies told by people who were not there."