Kodak manufactured numerous films that were available globally. Has Lomography researched and developed a single original coating? Have they ever built a plant? Do they have anything like Kodachrome in their portfolio? Have they independently designed a single completely new camera from scratch?
To my mind Lomography is a marketing company. Marketing is important to any business, but my priority is reliable sources of consistent film at fair prices. Reanimating dead and dying products can be done well, or you can create Frankenstein. The concern is Lomography's core market don't think film is an interesting material with creative possibilities, unless it's served up in strange hues and shot on bad cameras. Like a joke repeatedly told, its effect quickly wears off. Especially when everyone else is telling the same joke.Regarding Lomography: they outsource. And to compare what Lomography can do today with film photography to what Kodak did over the last century is absurd. When Kodak thrived film photography was ascendent. Frankly, Lomography is one of Kodak's best friends. I believe Kodak doesn't realize it. They should.
I always thought of lomography as more of a fashion accessory. Be hip and shoot film, which I guess is okay, but it seems to be photography as incidental to an activity rather than as a primary goal. But I could have it all wrong.
The most obvious outcome of such an arrangement would be fancier boxes and considerably more expensive film. From what I read some Lomography films are available from other sources, and almost always less expensively. There are many film products I'd like to see return, but not at any price. Kodachrome is one, but if it cost £25 a box I'd use an alternative. I'm aware some people would pay that price to see it back, but I'm not one of them. Nor do I think a photo of Greta Garbo or a Saturn V rocket on the box adds anything to my appreciation of its contents.Few companies succeed without marketing, as Kodak is proving. The might think about outsourcing the marketing to Lomography. I bet Lomography in partnership with Kodak could have made a market for Kodak's Ektachrome release (something that I question will actually happen).
So if they aren't using a lomography camera or film, is it really lomography? The guy in OP's link was shooting an Stylus Epic and Porta 400. Since he was snowboarding when shooting film, it's lomography? I think we need some kind of definition so we are all on the same page.I think that there is a lot of "fashion accessory" associated with Lomography. But I see an awful lot of serious work as well. I think it can be both.
So if they aren't using a lomography camera or film, is it really lomography? The guy in OP's link was shooting an Stylus Epic and Porta 400. Lomography?
Who can say? Lomography is mercurial stuff, apparently, and available to users of a Konica Aiborg, an M3, a Plaubel or a pinhole camera. Given an appropriate hat and the right car to stand on, I'm sure Ansel himself would qualify as a Lomographer.So if they aren't using a lomography camera or film, is it really lomography? The guy in OP's link was shooting an Stylus Epic and Porta 400. Lomography?
It’s a state of mind thing, not a gear thing.So if they aren't using a lomography camera or film, is it really lomography? The guy in OP's link was shooting an Stylus Epic and Porta 400. Since he was snowboarding when shooting film, it's lomography? I think we need some kind of definition so we are all on the same page.
Kodak manufactured numerous films that were available globally. Has Lomography researched and developed a single original coating? Have they ever built a plant? Do they have anything like Kodachrome in their portfolio? Have they independently designed a single completely new camera from scratch?
Film community sounds too Stepford Wives for my taste. Film is a product. I don't want to ally myself with a lifestyle because I prefer to shoot film. Lomography doesn't mean anything, it's a completely nebulous concept except as a range of products. It's an attempt to ring fence an entire medium and rebrand it to the company's benefit. People on this site were using film, and some of the cameras Lomography sell as their own, before the term was ever heard of. I resist having my choices re-branded into something I never gave my assent to. If you want to rebrand something, do what Agfa's owners did with Fuji 200 and sell it for a pound a roll.Lomography probably do more for growing the film community than anyone else to be honest
Perhaps this is a good articulation of my uneasiness with lomography. It wraps a lifestyle around an aesthetic choice.Film community sounds too Stepford Wives for my taste. Film is a product. I don't want to ally myself with a lifestyle because I prefer to shoot film. Lomography doesn't mean anything, it's a completely nebulous concept except as a range of products. It's an attempt to ring fence an entire medium and rebrand it to the company's benefit. People on this site were using film, and some of the cameras Lomography sell as their own, before the term was ever heard of. I resist having my choices re-branded into something I never gave my assent to. If you want to rebrand something, do what Agfa's owners did with Fuji 200 and sell it for a pound a roll.
You’re already a member of a film community. Welcome to Stepford...Film community sounds too Stepford Wives for my taste. Film is a product. I don't want to ally myself with a lifestyle because I prefer to shoot film.
It's an internet forum. There's no commitment, financial or philosophical, to post here. It even includes digital photographers and smart phone users. Are "Lomo shooters" like calling Nikon users Nikonographers?You’re already a member of a film community. Welcome to Stepford...
A fairly cranky community at that sometimes....Even though it’s an Internet forum, it is a community.
It's an internet forum. There's no commitment, financial or philosophical, to post here. It even includes digital photographers and smart phone users. Are "Lomo shooters" like calling Nikon users Nikonographers?
Film community sounds too Stepford Wives for my taste. Film is a product. I don't want to ally myself with a lifestyle because I prefer to shoot film. Lomography doesn't mean anything, it's a completely nebulous concept except as a range of products. It's an attempt to ring fence an entire medium and rebrand it to the company's benefit. People on this site were using film, and some of the cameras Lomography sell as their own, before the term was ever heard of. I resist having my choices re-branded into something I never gave my assent to. If you want to rebrand something, do what Agfa's owners did with Fuji 200 and sell it for a pound a roll.
It's impossible to say without hard figures. As I don't use any of Lomography's products, it's irrelevant either way. My concern is maintaining existing film production at a price I'm prepared to pay. I get through a lot of film so its important costs are reasonable.Lomography probably does more than any other company to get new people into shooting film
To accepting more expensive film and worse cameras as the norm?Lomography is an evolution...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?