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

wyofilm · Dec 18, 2017

faberryman said:
If the gear does not matter, why do they brand (and rebrand) and sell expensive toy cameras. If the gear does not matter, why does the movement (for lack of a better word) insist on using film?

Lomography sells stuff because they are a profit driven company (good for them). I imagine they sell the cameras that they do is because it is an extension of how the lomography movement started (ditto for using film?). But for the sake of argument what other cameras would they sell? I am guessing lomography would have closed their doors long ago if they tried to design, build and market a traditional (for lack of a better word) 135/120 camera. What would have been the barrier for entry for the young crowd associating with Lomography? Could they have successfully marketed a Nikon10 or recent Bessa 120 foldable? I doubt it.

faberryman · Dec 18, 2017

Lomography started out as a movement. They then monetized it.

wyofilm · Dec 18, 2017

faberryman said:
Lomography started out as a movement. They then monetized it.

Good for them!

removed account4 · Dec 18, 2017

faberryman said:
If the gear does not matter, why do they brand (and rebrand) and sell expensive toy cameras. If the gear does not matter, why does the movement (for lack of a better word) insist on using film?

hi faberryman
im not sure to be honest
i don't own one of their cameras and have
never bought any of their film
i was given a lubitel years ago by a friend
who i guess was given the camera by
his classmate
( one of the people who founded lomography in the early 90s )
i had never heard of a lubitel or lomo but about a year or 2 before
sold my yashica and 120 film so i was kind of jonsing for a mf camera
at the time, and i don't usually pass up anything that is free ..
i used it for a while and somehow i attempted to modify it
(unfortunatley ) and the camera was FUBAR after that ...

personally *I* don't think the gear matters
i don't know what the lomographic society thinks
i am sure they want you to use their cameras
so they can keep their shops open
( funneling $$ into the owners pockets )
and funnel money into new or rebranded
new cameras ( maybe another brass petzval lens? )
i'm not an expert in lomo or what they believe in
i've wanted one of their cameras but have never
been with $$ at the time i wanted to buy it

what i was pointing out is that too many people
are fixated on gear and it is the least important part
of the whole photographic process...( at least to me )
its like having 7 different 35mm bodies and 100 different lenses
and a couple of MF bodies when you go out to take photographs ..
one gets so bogged down
all that "stuff"
you lose sight of what the point of going out to
take pictures was ... to actually take some pictures

instead it was to decide whether to use the nikon with the 50mm or the
35-125zoom, or the 100 because you haven't used it in a while
or maybe the hillside ( or whatever ) would look better using
the leica m3 with the 35mm lens ( umm maybe not,
you forgot you need the viewer because your camera lens needs goggles )
so, maybe it would look better with the hassy and its square,
but you only brought chrome film for it and you would rather use b/w...
and by the time you decided on the minox ...

... it started to rain ...

the hillside ( or whatever ) would have looked good using pretty much anything ... but what you used ...

Pioneer · Dec 18, 2017

I do own the Lomo LCA 120, and though I thought it was a tad expensive at first, I had an opportunity to try it out before buying it.

It actually turned out to be a really good street camera with very good metering. Since I like 120 roll film, and use quite a bit of it, I have opportunity to shoot my LCA 120 quite a bit. So far it has turned out to be quite reliable and very sturdy. It is smaller and lighter taen my old Agfa Jsolette, easier to focus, and certainly easier to expose with automatic exposure. Not for everyone for sure, and it is certainly not a Hasselblad, but quite a good camera none the less.

Now that I own it and use it I am quite happy with it and do not consider it a waste of money in any way. As for how long it will hold up, I have no idea. If it breaks tomorrow I will be disappointed for certain, but so far it has shown no signs that it is very fragile.

There are problems with the camera. The shutter is very hard to press and unless you take care can create some camera movement. The method of retaining rolls of film is a little flaky but not hard to work with when you get used to it. But truthfully, those are the only goofy problems I have and it is very quick and handy on the street.

I know for many of you it doesn't matter, but for me this camera was worth what I paid for it. I like how it works and it produces photos that are very nice. I give Lomo kudos for this. There may be other 6x6 120 roll film cameras out there that are similar, but I can't think of any at the moment. The Fuji GA645 Pro is similar but a bit higher specified, but it is definitely heavier. Prices are similar (used vs new of course) but I think that there are fewer electronics to go haywire with the LCA.

Just my viewpoint.

blockend · Dec 18, 2017

Talk to people over 35, and a surprising number learnt to shoot, develop and print photographs as part of a college course. A significant proportion, perhaps even a majority claim something always went wrong. While there are numerous ways to mess up, the process is not unlike cooking - unless you do something really bad, you'll always get an acceptable result. The idea that film photography is an inherently volatile medium, full of gremlins determined to unseat the result, a (literally) dark art beyond the ability of normal humans, seems to be at the heart of the Lomography ethos. This doesn't sit well with people who shot film professionally, and for whom variation was a very bad thing to be avoided at all costs.

Film is an incredible stable commercial product. Glass photographic plates were available until relatively recently, mainly for astro-photographic purposes to eliminate even the tiny shrinkage of film in varying temperatures (and avoid getting a star a few million light years out of position). Professional films had short shelf lives and were consistent to a near-perfect degree. To present film as a wacky, accident prone medium that throws up interesting errors with every roll, is off the mark. Mainstream manufacturers like Ilford could do more to make their packaging attractive. It was last significantly tweaked in the 1970s. It didn't used to be that way as a look at old film packaging will illustrate. It used to be less corporate and more fun. Without continued research, film will fall into the rear view mirror with each passing year. Perhaps that's what Lomography is about - photography as re-enactment, a branch of performance art for which the results are less important than the process of shooting?

wyofilm · Dec 18, 2017

There is wonderment, mystery, and excitement in the beginning for many photographers. Seeing the prints and negs from the corner store for the first time. Watching the imaging pop by magic while printing for the first time. Pointing an instamatic at the sun to see what you get. Goofy things really. Then one tries to make the same things happen twice ... then again, but a little better. And so on. Sometimes I work hard to make an image just how I want it, but even now I will sometimes 'set things up' for the joy of randomness. Does the Lomo movement take it too far? It really isn't for me to say - it's their hobby, not mine. The company Lomo is filling a market niche. Will lomo the company change as their core photographers change the way they shoot film?

One final point - we really don't know how long a lomographer stays a lomographer. There is every reason to suspect a new cadre enters the hallowed halls of lomography - some graduate, some drop out. If one sticks with it, one will grow.

Cholentpot · Dec 18, 2017

blockend said:
Talk to people over 35, and a surprising number learnt to shoot, develop and print photographs as part of a college course. A significant proportion, perhaps even a majority claim something always went wrong. While there are numerous ways to mess up, the process is not unlike cooking - unless you do something really bad, you'll always get an acceptable result. The idea that film photography is an inherently volatile medium, full of gremlins determined to unseat the result, a (literally) dark art beyond the ability of normal humans, seems to be at the heart of the Lomography ethos. This doesn't sit well with people who shot film professionally, and for whom variation was a very bad thing to be avoided at all costs.

Film is an incredible stable commercial product. Glass photographic plates were available until relatively recently, mainly for astro-photographic purposes to eliminate even the tiny shrinkage of film in varying temperatures (and avoid getting a star a few million light years out of position). Professional films had short shelf lives and were consistent to a near-perfect degree. To present film as a wacky, accident prone medium that throws up interesting errors with every roll, is off the mark. Mainstream manufacturers like Ilford could do more to make their packaging attractive. It was last significantly tweaked in the 1970s. It didn't used to be that way as a look at old film packaging will illustrate. It used to be less corporate and more fun. Without continued research, film will fall into the rear view mirror with each passing year. Perhaps that's what Lomography is about - photography as re-enactment, a branch of performance art for which the results are less important than the process of shooting?

Compared to digital it is wacky, stinky and oddball.

That's why I love it. Sure you can get absolutely perfect dependable results time and time again with film but then what's the point? The charm of film is it's 'dark artness' Most shooters back in the day shot full auto p&s and dropped the film off at CVS/Walgreens/Boots/Duane Reade or what ever place. Film to 90% of users was magic in a box. If you opened the box the magic escaped and was gone forever. Sorta like the magic smoke from computers.

faberryman · Dec 18, 2017

Cholentpot said:
Sure you can get absolutely perfect dependable results time and time again with film but then what's the point?

Some of us previsualize the image and rely on predictable technical results to implement our vision. Others go a different way.

blockend · Dec 18, 2017

Cholentpot said:
Compared to digital it is wacky, stinky and oddball.

That's why I love it. Sure you can get absolutely perfect dependable results time and time again with film but then what's the point? The charm of film is it's 'dark artness' Most shooters back in the day shot full auto p&s and dropped the film off at CVS/Walgreens/Boots/Duane Reade or what ever place. Film to 90% of users was magic in a box. If you opened the box the magic escaped and was gone forever. Sorta like the magic smoke from computers.

That may have been true way back, but in the living memory of most people film was a multi-layered, highly corrected, lab produced and developed medium that turned out consistent results. Most of the variation was at the print stage. Scan an old neg, and tone and colour is usually close enough to be tweakable. The only difference between then and now is grain and colour saturation, and the quality of the lens, which is still the case.

AgX · Dec 18, 2017

faberryman said:
Lomography started out as a movement. They then monetized it.

This story is new to me.

It is rather that the origin was at importing Lomo LC-As to western Europe in the early 90s. Thus there first was a commercial enterprise.

Cholentpot · Dec 18, 2017

blockend said:
That may have been true way back, but in the living memory of most people film was a multi-layered, highly corrected, lab produced and developed medium that turned out consistent results. Most of the variation was at the print stage. Scan an old neg, and tone and colour is usually close enough to be tweakable. The only difference between then and now is grain and colour saturation, and the quality of the lens, which is still the case.

Yes this is correct.

However what is the point in shooting highly corrected, lab developed film? Wouldn't you be losing the nuanced look of film one the over processing kicks in? At that point you might as well shoot digital with filters no? I mean unless you enjoy the cameras and process and that's a perfectly legitimate reason to shoot film. But if you want solid incorruptible consistent results why would you stick with film? It's like writing a novel with a ball point pen because at one time it was used by the pros who narrowed writing with a pen down to a technical perfection. Meanwhile instead of fighting with whiteout and malfunctions you can use a word processor. Now, if you say you like the look of ink on paper and the feel of a pen in your hand and the challenge of using a BIC as a medium I can understand that. But if your goal is to crank out a 500 page book to get to the editor asap your fooling yourself to think a pen is the most efficient tool.

removed account4 · Dec 18, 2017

im still at a loss.
is the problem
the way lomography markets their cameras ?
the fact that they cost more than a few dollars ( but by reports are worth it )?
or the idea that film really isn't the way its being marketed by the company
( even though they market their own reverse loaded films, expired films &c
so maybe things aren't always the same every time )

sure, i have shot professionally for 30+ years, and for client work that's great
giving them what they want, what they paid for, no serendipity, no chance, no happenstance
but for my personal work, id rather not, its like people who sit infront of a computer all day
for work, using film because it is the opposite ... shooting a box-like camera is like that ...

Pioneer · Dec 18, 2017

I'm not a pro. I am not trying to do the same thing, the same way, every day, and have it turn out exactly the way it did the first time.

Instead I am often trying to do things differently, to get slightly different results. I try different films, with different developers, using different agitation routines or different times and even different temperatures. I do want something to turn out, and that is why I am glad that films can be very forgiving. But I don't necessarily want it to look exactly the same every time it comes out of the soup.

Believe it or not it was Ansel Adams in The Negative that actually got me going with this. In the appendix to that book there is a way to determine the true exposure index for your camera and a given film. I know that you have all heard of it, and most of you have probably done it. And it did teach me how to come up with the true exposure index. But it also taught me that it doesn't always have to come out of the wash cycle looking the same way. I can make adjustments to get the look I want by exposing at different times and developing at different times.

Then I read The Print. Oh Lordy, the things I can do now!

blockend · Dec 19, 2017

Cholentpot said:
However what is the point in shooting highly corrected, lab developed film? Wouldn't you be losing the nuanced look of film one the over processing kicks in? At that point you might as well shoot digital with filters no?

That's the point. Film is consistent. You have to mess it up to get inaccurate results, and you may as well put a digital file through filters if you want to get quirky results. Film has characteristics that differ from digital but are nothing to do with inaccuracy. The hipster end of photography seems to consist of endless shallow focus shots of tea coloured landscapes and washed out colour pictures of girls. It's like an exercise in nostalgia for a photography than never was, photography viewed through a bleached snapshot that has been kept on a granny's window sill for the last thirty years. I can't see how that is more than a passing fad.

MattKing · Dec 19, 2017

Cholentpot said:
But if you want solid incorruptible consistent results why would you stick with film?

Because I can and do achieve solid, high quality results with film, and those results tend to be better than the results I get from digital.
But that is because I'm better with film than I am with digital, and because I still have access to really good labs for those parts of the process that I don't do myself.
I'm not sure about the significance of "incorruptible".

RalphLambrecht · Dec 19, 2017

gr82bart said:
https://www.lomography.com/magazine/334742-dreamy-snowboard-adventure-in-a-convertible-camper

One example. Decent blog post.
Regards, Art

Why do we have to inspire the younger generation for film? Let them find their own thing. They may surprise you.

Ste_S · Dec 19, 2017

Pioneer said:
I do own the Lomo LCA 120, and though I thought it was a tad expensive at first, I had an opportunity to try it out before buying it.

It actually turned out to be a really good street camera with very good metering. Since I like 120 roll film, and use quite a bit of it, I have opportunity to shoot my LCA 120 quite a bit. So far it has turned out to be quite reliable and very sturdy. It is smaller and lighter taen my old Agfa Jsolette, easier to focus, and certainly easier to expose with automatic exposure. Not for everyone for sure, and it is certainly not a Hasselblad, but quite a good camera none the less.

Now that I own it and use it I am quite happy with it and do not consider it a waste of money in any way. As for how long it will hold up, I have no idea. If it breaks tomorrow I will be disappointed for certain, but so far it has shown no signs that it is very fragile.

There are problems with the camera. The shutter is very hard to press and unless you take care can create some camera movement. The method of retaining rolls of film is a little flaky but not hard to work with when you get used to it. But truthfully, those are the only goofy problems I have and it is very quick and handy on the street.

I know for many of you it doesn't matter, but for me this camera was worth what I paid for it. I like how it works and it produces photos that are very nice. I give Lomo kudos for this. There may be other 6x6 120 roll film cameras out there that are similar, but I can't think of any at the moment. The Fuji GA645 Pro is similar but a bit higher specified, but it is definitely heavier. Prices are similar (used vs new of course) but I think that there are fewer electronics to go haywire with the LCA.

Just my viewpoint.

I think for the price they're charging, the quality control needs to be a bit higher - otherwise you might as well buy a Holga, or their own Diana. I read one review where the hotshoe fell off after a day, another where inconsistant spacing on the film was a problem along with a failed shutter. I was in the market for a small(er) 120 camera for street shooting, and ended up buying a Zeiss folder

blockend said:
To present film as a wacky, accident prone medium that throws up interesting errors with every roll, is off the mark.

I don't think anyone is trying to say film should just be 'wacky'. It's just part of the melting pot of photography.

I had an accidental Lomo moment this year. Running a test roll through an Olympus Trip 35 at a festival it was light leaks a go-go across a large number of photos. Ended up with this photo though, where the light leak hit the photo in just the right place

Cholentpot · Dec 19, 2017

Pioneer said:
I'm not a pro. I am not trying to do the same thing, the same way, every day, and have it turn out exactly the way it did the first time.

Instead I am often trying to do things differently, to get slightly different results. I try different films, with different developers, using different agitation routines or different times and even different temperatures. I do want something to turn out, and that is why I am glad that films can be very forgiving. But I don't necessarily want it to look exactly the same every time it comes out of the soup.

Believe it or not it was Ansel Adams in The Negative that actually got me going with this. In the appendix to that book there is a way to determine the true exposure index for your camera and a given film. I know that you have all heard of it, and most of you have probably done it. And it did teach me how to come up with the true exposure index. But it also taught me that it doesn't always have to come out of the wash cycle looking the same way. I can make adjustments to get the look I want by exposing at different times and developing at different times.

Then I read The Print. Oh Lordy, the things I can do now!

The one film, one developer crowd will want your head on a pogostick.

MattKing said:
Because I can and do achieve solid, high quality results with film, and those results tend to be better than the results I get from digital.
But that is because I'm better with film than I am with digital, and because I still have access to really good labs for those parts of the process that I don't do myself.
I'm not sure about the significance of "incorruptible".

blockend said:
That's the point. Film is consistent. You have to mess it up to get inaccurate results, and you may as well put a digital file through filters if you want to get quirky results. Film has characteristics that differ from digital but are nothing to do with inaccuracy. The hipster end of photography seems to consist of endless shallow focus shots of tea coloured landscapes and washed out colour pictures of girls. It's like an exercise in nostalgia for a photography than never was, photography viewed through a bleached snapshot that has been kept on a granny's window sill for the last thirty years. I can't see how that is more than a passing fad.

As a relative young'n who does not shoot for a living I can only tell you my perspective. Seasoned folk my have decades invested in getting the perfect shot, exposure and development on 120 or 5x7. Youngsters like me don't want to put down decades of work into a medium that might not be here. We shoot whats around for fun and enjoyment. Happy mistakes are embraced. If we then want to get rid of the happy mistakes and go pro we switch over to the dark side because it'll give us what we need without the fight.

gr82bart · Dec 19, 2017

RalphLambrecht said:
Why do we have to inspire the younger generation for film? Let them find their own thing. They may surprise you.

Uh, if you know anything about Lomography, those kids are self inspiring.

E. von Hoegh · Dec 19, 2017

macfred said:
At least those 'lomographers' have no reservations on Leica : I named her Gretel - https://www.lomography.de/magazine/222384-leica-if-the-lomo-leica

Salesman sure saw that guy coming.

wyofilm · Dec 19, 2017

E. von Hoegh said:
Salesman sure saw that guy coming.

Yeah, I was thinking that, too. Education, formal or otherwise, comes at a price for all of us.

FujiLove · Dec 19, 2017

Pioneer said:
I do own the Lomo LCA 120, and though I thought it was a tad expensive at first, I had an opportunity to try it out before buying it.

It actually turned out to be a really good street camera with very good metering. Since I like 120 roll film, and use quite a bit of it, I have opportunity to shoot my LCA 120 quite a bit. So far it has turned out to be quite reliable and very sturdy. It is smaller and lighter taen my old Agfa Jsolette, easier to focus, and certainly easier to expose with automatic exposure. Not for everyone for sure, and it is certainly not a Hasselblad, but quite a good camera none the less.

Now that I own it and use it I am quite happy with it and do not consider it a waste of money in any way. As for how long it will hold up, I have no idea. If it breaks tomorrow I will be disappointed for certain, but so far it has shown no signs that it is very fragile.

There are problems with the camera. The shutter is very hard to press and unless you take care can create some camera movement. The method of retaining rolls of film is a little flaky but not hard to work with when you get used to it. But truthfully, those are the only goofy problems I have and it is very quick and handy on the street.

I know for many of you it doesn't matter, but for me this camera was worth what I paid for it. I like how it works and it produces photos that are very nice. I give Lomo kudos for this. There may be other 6x6 120 roll film cameras out there that are similar, but I can't think of any at the moment. The Fuji GA645 Pro is similar but a bit higher specified, but it is definitely heavier. Prices are similar (used vs new of course) but I think that there are fewer electronics to go haywire with the LCA.

Just my viewpoint.

Good to know. I've been pondering a LCA 120 for quite a while. They seem to be a great value (I won't say 'cheap') light weight alternative to a Hasselblad SWC. And I do enjoy a bit of vignetting

E. von Hoegh · Dec 19, 2017

wyofilm said:
Yeah, I was thinking that, too. Education, formal or otherwise, comes at a price for all of us.

Reminds me of the old saying: "if you think education is expensive, try ignorance".

4season · Dec 19, 2017

blockend said:
Without continued research, film will fall into the rear view mirror with each passing year. Perhaps that's what Lomography is about - photography as re-enactment, a branch of performance art for which the results are less important than the process of shooting?

Lomography isn't drawing attention away from more serious pursuits of analog state-of-the-art: The market for such things went away years ago. If anything, they're helping to keep interest and enthusiasm in film alive one purple photo at a time.

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

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency