Lomography - this is how you inspire the younger generation into film

[Cholentpot]

Who does this, and why? What is the psychology of using a fountain pen? You do know that signing a charge slip in a restaurant or at the mall is a contract?

Whimsy has a place. Some people like to add flavor to life. I find film tastes better than digital. More of a mellow feel although it can be a bit rough on the palette at times.

 

[1kgcoffee]

Profound may be a strange choice in words, but I absolutely agree. Especially a good negative or slide. It's like a painting, because of the grain and dye clouds, you have a continuous image as opposed to digital which is composed of equally sized and spaced pixels. The way film renders light gives the photograph a unique personality that is difficult to replicate.

 

[removed account4]

I practiced law for decades and witnessed thousands of contacts being signed. The few that were signed with a fountain pen were generally done by people who wanted to feel a heightened sense of importance, and who exhibited other affected behaviors. I wouldn't wish those characteristics on photographers who choose to shoot film (and is why I think the analogy is misplaced), but sometimes the shoe fits.

LOL but they do shoot film, mostly with a leica or a large format camera
i think sometimes what they are called is "gear heads"
it takes all types in this world, and these good folks counterbalance the tribe who are the polar opposite ...

 

[MattKing]

I practiced law for decades and witnessed thousands of contacts being signed. The few that were signed with a fountain pen were generally done by people who wanted to feel a heightened sense of importance, and who exhibited other affected behaviors. I wouldn't wish those characteristics on photographers who choose to shoot film (and is why I think the analogy is misplaced), but sometimes the shoe fits.

I too practiced law for a while - just under a quarter century.
I didn't encounter many people who chose to use fountain pens, but those I did:
1) tended to have really excellent handwriting; and
2) tended to be older than me.
Strangely enough, they also tended to be either artists or artisans.
I don't know that they had any other consistent psychological trends. It may be that my clients weren't from the same group as faberryman.
The people who used to amaze me were the ones who would ask me how they were supposed to sign things. As if signing a document with more formal or unusual legal ramifications required a different signature than a letter or cheque.

 

[AgX]

lomography on film is for people from eighties. It was no digital cameras back then, no phones, no FB, ISG and else.
Now young ones are taking it with mobile phones or (few) with Fuji Instax.

To my experience Lomography cameras were offered at stores directed to the 20-30 (though I have seen one such attempt fail), I have only seen these cameras being bought by people around 20.

 

[blockend]

were generally done by people who wanted to feel a heightened sense of importance, and who exhibited other affected behaviors

If you'd said bow-tie wearers...

 

[guangong]

First, about fountain pens. Ball points were just introduced after WWII and tended to be messy, so we were not allowed to use them in school. We used nibs and ink wells.
I use a fountain pen because it is faster and less tiring than any other writing instrument.
The topic of this thread was that lomography was a good way to introduce beginners to photography. I don’t think so. Producing accidents and calling it art is not the same thing as producing art, which requires thought and technique. What most advocates of Lomo seem to be praising is the kind of stuff parents of 3 yr olds stick on their refrigerator. We all did that but that was really not learning about painting composition. My very first camera, when about nine years old was a Donald Duck 127, followed by an Argus c3. And, like all beginners, fascinated by the development process. As for beginner photography...everything you need to start taking pictures is contained in the text printed inside the box of film. Everything else is self cultivation and development.
In the past, photography was necessary for anyone who wanted to record an image. Now it is for those who are interested in photography.

 

[Jim Jones]

Lomography may be a good start until budding photographers are ready to move up to pinhole photography.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Lomography is to photography as McDonald's is to nutrition.
Overpriced plastic crap for equipment is no introduction to photography or any other craft.

 

[blockend]

Producing accidents and calling it art is not the same thing as producing art, which requires thought and technique

I disagree. The street photography genre is predicated on happy accidents, the coming together of disparate elements in a split second to create some kind of unity. It can be planned to a degree, where does the light fall, where's the action take place, but in the end it's fishing for a bite with long intervals of nothing for a few exciting catches. As Garry Winogrand said, everyone knows what a good photograph is supposed to look like, but they just require technique, and technique can be learnt by anyone. A great photograph on the other hand requires the ingredient of magic.

The idea of feeling a good photo is a sound one, but it doesn't require overpriced quirky cameras to roll with.

 

[wyofilm]

Lomography may be a good start until budding photographers are ready to move up to pinhole photography.

Since essentially no 20-something had access to film cameras in their youth, Lomo does a good first job at bringing in new film users. Their online magazine does feature some very talented photographers (https://www.lomography.com/magazine/334845-inside-pyongyang-eddo-hartman), for one. (Certainly not the stuff purple hued color film.). So on the one hand they provide an inviting avenue for first timers, but on the other hand also showcase the true art of photography. All in all, not bad. I can't think of any other company, other than Fuji and instax, that brings in more first film photographers. And when those Lomo photographers get tired of purple faces (they will), they then buy Ilford, Kodak, etc. For this I am grateful - even if some might use fountain pens (gasp!).

 

[jim10219]

Are we seriously judging people based on what kind of pen they use?

 

[removed account4]

Lomography is to photography as McDonald's is to nutrition.
Overpriced plastic crap for equipment is no introduction to photography or any other craft.

EvH
my perspective is exactly the opposite ..
something plastic or metal or bakelite or mahogany it doesn't really matter
if someone starts using their eyes and brain that is what matters.
i don't really think a fine crafted camera is the same
as nutritious meal ... ive seen more bad photographs made with expensive cameras
than i have all the lomo holga, diana lofi, quakerbox anti-fine crafted camera combined ...

 

[wyofilm]

EvH
... ive seen more bad photographs made with expensive cameras
than i have all the lomo holga, diana lofi, quakerbox anti-fine crafted camera combined ...

+1

Nothing wrong with a Holga. Sure it is crap. Sure it was originally a promotional joke. But a Holga (with some duct tape) strips photography down to base elements. Started my kids with pinhole cameras, then holgas. I would give them one composition rule to follow and then send them off. Results were often surprising and good. They thought it was just good fun. My daughter still prefers to shoot with a Holga because of its simplicity.

 

[TheRook]

Lomography is to photography as McDonald's is to nutrition.
Overpriced plastic crap for equipment is no introduction to photography or any other craft.

If you had bothered to read the article, you would have noticed that neither the photographer featured, nor his camera, really have anything to do with lomography.

 

[wyofilm]

If you had bothered to read the article, you would have noticed that neither the photographer featured, nor his camera, really have anything to do with lomography.

Well, except for Lomography's editorial role in their online magazine. Lomography is more than plastic cameras and purple film. And they bring in young, first time film users.

I would say compare Lomography to a company like Kodak or Kodak Alaris - serious film for serious people - that has no viable plan for expanding a film market. That ridiculous super 8mm camera from Kodak, if it ever hits the market, will recruit zero new film photographers and do Kodak's fragile reputation harm. I don't know for sure, but I bet Lomography MAKES a profit, an almost quaint event in today's film photography business. While I desperately hope one or more of the Kodaks is around in five years, I would put money on Lomography making it that long.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Well, except for Lomography's editorial role in their online magazine. Lomography is more than plastic cameras and purple film. And they bring in young, first time film users.

I would say compare Lomography to a company like Kodak or Kodak Alaris - serious film for serious people - that has no viable plan for expanding a film market. That ridiculous super 8mm camera from Kodak, if it ever hits the market, will recruit zero new film photographers and do Kodak's fragile reputation harm. I don't know for sure, but I bet Lomography MAKES a profit, an almost quaint event in today's film photography business. While I desperately hope one or more of the Kodaks is around in five years, I would put money on Lomography making it that long.

I keep hearing this as a justification. It isn't. Ilford makes a profit, too, btw.
I'd like to know how many "young first time film users" go on to decent cameras at realistic prices and film that renders naturally, and how many say "this is crap, my phone takes more realistic pictures" and abandon film for digital, thinking the overpriced stuff lomography peddles is really what film and film gear is like. Disagree if you wish, it won't change the reality which is that lomography is misleading, and all about profit to the point of selling whatever "art lens" and plastic - fantastic stuff they can turn a profit on under the guise of disseminating the wonders of film.
I agree about the Kodak movie camera.

 

[wyofilm]

Ilford makes a profit, too, btw.

Of course, things hadn't been great for Ilford/Harmon, but now under Pemberstone Ventures I hope that they are thriving. I REALLY hope they are thriving.

Maybe Pemberstone Ventures would like to snap up Kodak Alaris. Or who knows maybe Lomography can buy Kodak Alaris; it will probably be pretty cheap. (Ok, this last bit about Lomography was tongue in cheek.)

My question is then, who else is good at creating a film market for a new generation? Like 'em or not Lomography has better marking for the young than anyone else.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Of course, things hadn't been great for Ilford/Harmon, but now under Pemberstone Ventures I hope that they are thriving. I REALLY hope they are thriving.

Maybe Pemberstone Ventures would like to snap up Kodak Alaris. Or who knows maybe Lomography can buy Kodak Alaris; it will probably be pretty cheap. (Ok, this last bit about Lomography was tongue in cheek.)

My question is then, who else is good at creating a film market for a new generation? Like 'em or not Lomography has better marking for the young than anyone else.

I wish someone could set Kodak back on track.

 

[wyofilm]

I wish someone could set Kodak back on track.

+1

Unless they get their s*** together or someone useful buys them or their film division up, it will be a colorless film word out there (I don't count on Fuji staying in the game). If they screw up their Ektachrome release, they will have no credibility in the financial world. While the misguided Ektachrome project is only a tiny part of their business strategy, the press will eat them alive.

 

[Cholentpot]

Are we seriously judging people based on what kind of pen they use?

No, we're judging people by what kind of camera they use.

 

[MattKing]

If you'd said bow-tie wearers...

Banjo players excepted, of course

 

[Pioneer]

No, we're judging people by what kind of camera they use.

Hey!!

Leave my Holga alone.

I am not a fine artist.

I will never pay the bills with a photograph.

For me it is a hobby.

Hobbies are supposed to be fun.

Hobbies are for relaxation.

All Lomography is trying to do is to let kids have fun with film.

So relax and let people play a bit.

EDIT - Not trying to pick on you Cholentpot. Just using your post as a lead in...

 

[Craig75]

If you had bothered to read the article, you would have noticed that neither the photographer featured, nor his camera, really have anything to do with lomography.

This! Both Lomo and Ilford articles are about guys using quality film cameras loaded with Kodak or Ilford film.

 

[baachitraka]

Lomography is to photography as McDonald's is to nutrition.
Overpriced plastic crap for equipment is no introduction to photography or any other craft.

The problem is when everybody try to fill flickr pits with their creation and pretend to be an artist or want to become an artist, then movements like lomography have no role to play and I would say its needs an artistic eye and some luck to handle cameras/films from lomography.

I have Holga 120 GFN and Diana F (1960). Printing those negatives are kind of joy.