lomography is a con - discuss

2F/2F · Mar 7, 2010

She was the type who was greatly relieved when digital came along, switched immediately, never looked back, and looks down on and makes fun of anyone who did not do the same.

In other words, a know-nothing idiot and asshole.

The only reason I had the camera with me was to use it! It is one of the most convenient every-day carry-around cameras that still gives professional-quality images on a technical level. Until it broke, I had it with me practically every day, whether I happened to shoot it that day or not.

walter23 · Mar 7, 2010

Lomography is someone's brilliant idea to market really cheap cameras with slick images and retro appeal, for much higher price than other, less well-known, but equally capable (or incapable) cameras you can pick up for only a couple of dollars on ebay.

Sure, it's got some people using film, and that's good... but it's dishonest, too.

MartinCrabtree · Mar 7, 2010

I must admit I bought one of the Fisheye cameras for my nephew's birthday.He loves it and shoots all the time.paid $40 for it on eBay and it came with 4 rolls of expired film.I believe it's made another analog fan.So it's not all bad.

5stringdeath · Mar 7, 2010

hey hey hey here ya go:

http://stlouis.craigslist.org/pho/1633302439.html

should i buy it????

lorirfrommontana · Mar 7, 2010

I got my youngest daughters Holga for $27 or $28 from Freestyle. I gave her the option for one of the pretty colored ones or the plain black. She wanted the black one so she could paint it with whatever colors she wanted. She was a bit disappointed that it didn't have any light leaks though! I'm busy trying to make my photos technically better while she loves the look of the holga photos. Whatever gets her interested in film! I couldn't imagine spending as much as some of those run though.

nick mulder · Mar 8, 2010

I recently put up my 5 year old Holga that I'd bought on the net direct from China for about $20US on a local auction website - completely bagged it in the description:

"camera has been used, had tape on it, things glued to it etc..."
"These things are junk"
"Reckon there's nothing I can say to the type of person who wants one of these to detract so anyways..."

Got $56US for it

sheesh

IloveTLRs · Mar 8, 2010

I sometimes like using plastic cameras, but I refuse to buy anything Lomography. Luckily we have Superheadz here in Japan, which makes platic cameras like the Golden Half and White Slim Angel, but for much more affordable prices.

I bought the Fisheye 2 a while back at, of all places, Urban Outfitters (I couldn't find anywhere that sold them.) $75 for the rewind lever to break off on the third roll. That's what I call a con.

Krzys · Mar 8, 2010

The local store in Brisbane is selling your standard Lomo LC-A for $570aud!!

Craig Swensson · Mar 8, 2010

nick mulder said:
I recently put up my 5 year old Holga that I'd bought on the net direct from China for about $20US on a local auction website - completely bagged it in the description:

"camera has been used, had tape on it, things glued to it etc..."
"These things are junk"
"Reckon there's nothing I can say to the type of person who wants one of these to detract so anyways..."

Got $56US for it

sheesh

yep, saw that - had a laugh

regards
CW

Erik Petersson · Mar 8, 2010

I once bought a Lomo LCA in a thrift shop in central asia for next to nothing, recently had the circuits fixed in Moscow and the same day slipped on a spot of ice and broke it. So I still don't know what this equipment is capable of.

Existing Light · Mar 8, 2010

2F/2F said:
In other words, a know-nothing idiot and asshole.

That describes most of the people here in Lawrence County, Alabama

2F/2F said:
The only reason I had the camera with me was to use it! ....I had it with me practically every day, whether I happened to shoot it that day or not.

Same thing with my Pentax K1000. I know it's not a Leica, but I think it's a fine little camera

David A. Goldfarb · Mar 8, 2010

I don't know that Lomography is more dishonest than other kinds of fads and fashions. I think that if you sat down with a group of dedicated Lomographers and explained why they would be better off with a Spotmatic for less money, you would get some converts, but for someone who would buy a gold and alligator Lomo, the Spotmatic wouldn't have the same fashion value. I mean, maybe for a hipster wearing a vintage gas station attendant shirt, a Spotmatic or a Sears-rebranded Canon body would fit the style better than a Lomo, but for someone who wants a Lomo, they need a Lomo.

When I was in Poland in the late 1980s, really, no East European photographer would want a Seagull or a Holga or a Lubitel or would choose to shoot East European films or print on East European papers, if they could afford materials made by Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, or Fuji. When there were shortages of meat, sugar, and toilet paper, there were shelves stocked with Lubitel's for around $15 in converted currency (a bit less than two weeks' average worker's salary at the time). A Kiev 88 was desirable, if one couldn't afford a Hasselblad, and a Zenit if one didn't have the money for a Canon or Nikon. Professional photojournalists tended to shoot Canon, if they had earned some money by working or licensing images abroad, because there was Canon service in Warsaw.

But now these objects have some campy cachet as the products of former Communist industry, not unlike the now-collectible East German Trabant automobile. A Spotmatic has its own aura for some of us, but it's part of a different phenomenon.

gr82bart · Mar 8, 2010

jnanian said:
i don't think the people buying these cameras
will ever use them, they will just be a " conversation piece "

Yeah, you're right.

There's only 200,000+ people with several tens of thousands active on their registered forum, 64,000 fans on their official Facebook site, even more on their official MySpace site, not to mention all the unofficial sites, and flickr probably has more missed LOMO pics uploads than all of APUG pics loaded together. Not to mention LOMO is truely international and gender equal unlike the mostly aged white English speaking males here.

No one uses those things after they buy them.

Regards, Art.

Q.G. · Mar 8, 2010

Sad, isn't it, that so many people didn't get it?
Which is what you do, if you think you need a Lomo or Holga, or any particular camera to be doing 'Lomography'.

So all those dedicated forums, MySpace thingies, flickr groups etc.... all people who perhaps do use their expensive Lomo's after they bought them, but failed to see that what they are doing is nothing like what they think it is.

Art,

Did you buy something to allow you to engage in Lomography yourself?

Andy K · Mar 8, 2010

Q.G. said:
Sad, isn't it, that so many people didn't get it?
Which is what you do, if you think you need a Lomo or Holga, or any particular camera to be doing 'Lomography'.

So all those dedicated forums, MySpace thingies, flickr groups etc.... all people who perhaps do use their expensive Lomo's after they bought them, but failed to see that what they are doing is nothing like what they think it is.

My LC-A cost £5.00. Not exactly expensive.

Q.G. · Mar 8, 2010

It isn't, no.

Did you get it for the express purpose of trying Lomography?

Andy K · Mar 8, 2010

Q.G. said:
It isn't, no.

Did you get it for the express purpose of trying Lomography?

I saw it in a charity shop about fifteen years ago. Bought as a fun carry anywhere camera. Found out about Lomography a couple of years later. Gave that a go, enjoyed it.

JBrunner · Mar 8, 2010

I started in photography, with a crappy camera, long before anyone had heard of "Lomo". I took many of the same sorts of pictures. I progressed from there in gear, format, and understanding. Lomo is a great gateway drug. Some of those kids making great pictures with crappy cameras are going to go on to other kinds of film work. There's nothing but good in that.

Q.G. · Mar 8, 2010

Andy K said:
I saw it in a charity shop about fifteen years ago. Bought as a fun carry anywhere camera. Found out about Lomography a couple of years later. Gave that a go, enjoyed it.

That's the spirit! Good man.

If only the youngsters Art was talking about would understand...

JBrunner said:
I started in photography, with a crappy camera, long before anyone had heard of "Lomo". I took many of the same sorts of pictures. I progressed from there in gear, format, and understanding. Lomo is a great gateway drug. Some of those kids making great pictures with crappy cameras are going to go on to other kinds of film work. There's nothing but good in that.

Agree completely.

The bad is in an organisation trying to part them from their money, selling them a 'life-style'.
Money that had better been spent buying film and really cheap cameras, like that Spotmatic that was mentioned before.

gr82bart · Mar 8, 2010

I'll get my dad to join APUG so he can lament with you guys. He bought his first crappy plastic camera for something like the equivalent to 2 cents US when he was growing up in Indonesia and wonders why you Westerners paid so much for yours at that time. I'm sure he thinks you guys got conned too.

Regards, Art.

gr82bart · Mar 8, 2010

Q.G. said:
Did you buy something to allow you to engage in Lomography yourself?

Questioning my pedigree, eh?

Hmm ... let's see. I got my first 'toy camera' when I was like 8 or so. My Mom and Dad bought me a plastic Kodak 110 camera that shot flash cube thingys that rotated. I recall it was pretty neat.

Fast forward, I got my first Holga sometime in university, before I heard the term Lomography.

BTW I actually call them Toy Cameras versus LOMO/Lomography, but hey, who's the purist?

Anyway, I have the Fisheye, the LCA, 3 Holgas (none of them blinged out like my Hassey), many brownies (thanks to Whotey), several different 110 cameras from that Kodak to 3 Pentax 110 cameras, a split frame camera, several multi-lens camera, just bought a Horizon pano, a Fuji Instax 200, and several others which I have lost count.

And yes I have shot at least 1 probably 2-100 rolls of film with each of them.

Regards, Art.

removed account4 · Mar 8, 2010

gr82bart said:
Yeah, you're right.

There's only 200,000+ people with several tens of thousands active on their registered forum, 64,000 fans on their official Facebook site, even more on their official MySpace site, not to mention all the unofficial sites, and flickr probably has more missed LOMO pics uploads than all of APUG pics loaded together. Not to mention LOMO is truely international and gender equal unlike the mostly aged white English speaking males here.

No one uses those things after they buy them.

Regards, Art.

:munch:

art,

those stats can be a load of hoooey ..

it is just 10 people making up all those
user names and loading images on the sites.
most of those images weren't made by
a genuine lomographic society apparatus anyways,
but the " bad plastic lens " filter in PS ... and a digips
you gotta read the exif [sic] data

if the stats are real ...

man, your a buzz-kill

j

ps. nice bling btw!

stwb · Mar 8, 2010

I listened to Nirvana before they were cool!

gr82bart · Mar 8, 2010

I was going to stir the pot up by linking this thread in a post within the Lomography website / forum .... I'm dangerous when bored at airports people ...

Regards, Art.

erikg · Mar 8, 2010

The Lomography site? Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded.

lomography is a con - discuss

2F/2F

walter23

MartinCrabtree

5stringdeath

lorirfrommontana

nick mulder

IloveTLRs

Krzys

Craig Swensson

Erik Petersson

Existing Light

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

gr82bart

Q.G.

Andy K

Q.G.

Andy K

JBrunner

Moderator

Q.G.

gr82bart

gr82bart

removed account4

stwb

gr82bart

erikg

lomography is a con - discuss

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency