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

[blockend]

Some other cameras that shoot "good photos". All current Buy Now prices on eBay UK:
Olympus Shoot'n Go, plastic lens fixed focus 35mm camera with flash: £2
Coronet 020 box camera, 120 roll film: £9.99
Kodak Bantam Colorsnap 35mm camera, £4.99
New unbranded 35mm plastic lens camera, £5.49
Kershaw 630 folder, 120 film, £28.99

Lots of great hype-free cameras out there, sharpness not included. Some will do sharpness too, and probably last another 30 years.

 

[wyofilm]

Lomography hypes the cameras they sell, of course. But they embrace all cameras and all photography.

For a nice treat that I think we can all get behind, follow this link https://www.lomography.com/magazine/326518-master-of-camera-a-story-of-a-camera-repairman for a beautiful short film on a 76 year camera repairman in Milan.

 

[jack straw]

I would love an LC-A 120...seems very cool as an upgraded, more versatile Holga. I’m not sure it’s worth over $400 to me, though. The aesthetics of the camera and the form factor are very appealing, and I like the photos. I will say, it’s hard to say they are overpriced when there aren’t many new, low production volume cameras to compare them to. I also know a lot less useful ways I’ve thought to spend $400 photographically!

 

[Ces1um]

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 ...

bravo! Well said.

 

[Ces1um]

Except for the fact that Kodak, with a few exceptions, sold decent products, not over-hyped rubbish, at reasonable prices and backed them up with very solid technical support.

Kodak sold a lot of shit cameras too- box cameras with one shutter speed, point and shoots with one aperture and two shutter speeds, 110 cameras with plastic lenses. Hey, sounds exactly like lomography's low end plastic fantastic cameras. Being an old and once powerful company doesn't change the fact they made some crappy stuff too, and hyped it, and charged for it too.

 

[Ste_S]

Of course they can take good pictures, I used one back in the 1970s. They were sold with rubber snakes and whoopee cushions.

And again, not sure what the point is here ? You could buy a pint of beer for 14p in 1970. A pint of beer is £5 now. Things are more expensive than they used to be

 

[Ste_S]

Kodak sold a lot of shit cameras too- box cameras with one shutter speed, point and shoots with one aperture and two shutter speeds, 110 cameras with plastic lenses. Hey, sounds exactly like lomography's low end plastic fantastic cameras. Being an old and once powerful company doesn't change the fact they made some crappy stuff too, and hyped it, and charged for it too.

Wasn't just Kodak. Ilford, Ferrania, Agfa and plenty of others sold cheap cameras to go with their film back in the day. As you say, Lomography remind me of those companies in the 60s/70s

 

[removed account4]

EXACTLY !!

 

[Pioneer]

Of course they can take good pictures, I used one back in the 1970s. They were sold with rubber snakes and whoopee cushions.

...to keep the kiddos smiling while you took their portraits...

Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Pioneer]

Some other cameras that shoot "good photos". All current Buy Now prices on eBay UK:
Olympus Shoot'n Go, plastic lens fixed focus 35mm camera with flash: £2
Coronet 020 box camera, 120 roll film: £9.99
Kodak Bantam Colorsnap 35mm camera, £4.99
New unbranded 35mm plastic lens camera, £5.49
Kershaw 630 folder, 120 film, £28.99

Lots of great hype-free cameras out there, sharpness not included. Some will do sharpness too, and probably last another 30 years.

You should start a series of articles in Lomography Magazine. Buy those cameras, run them through their paces, and report on them. I bet those nice prices start going up after you do.

 

[Ces1um]

Some other cameras that shoot "good photos". All current Buy Now prices on eBay UK:
Olympus Shoot'n Go, plastic lens fixed focus 35mm camera with flash: £2
Coronet 020 box camera, 120 roll film: £9.99
Kodak Bantam Colorsnap 35mm camera, £4.99
New unbranded 35mm plastic lens camera, £5.49
Kershaw 630 folder, 120 film, £28.99

Lots of great hype-free cameras out there, sharpness not included. Some will do sharpness too, and probably last another 30 years.

Your eBay prices are a little off. You didn't factor in the guy that never ships your item and strings you along until you can't get eBay to refund your money. You also missed the guy that tells you that "it worked the last time I used it" - but that was 40 years ago and it doesn't work now. You didn't factor in the necessary CLA either. How about the one that says it's untested, which really is code for it's broken because he dropped it in the lake. Ebay blows. I'd rather pay 400 bucks for a crummy La Sardina camera from Lomography than ever use that site again. Ever. I also hate kijiji. Damn sellers never show up to the agreed upon time/location. If I can't buy it new off of a reputable company or find it in a brick and mortar store (even if it's an antique store where I can test it myself) then I want nothing to do with it. Your mileage may vary but there are lots of people out there like me. That's why Lomography has sales.

 

[removed account4]

You should start a series of articles in Lomography Magazine. Buy those cameras, run them through their paces, and report on them. I bet those nice prices start going up after you do.

its funny
i used to buy old brass lenses for maybe 10-30$ each
then this guy in nevada named jim started using brass lenses
and writing articles on his website about them, and talking
on places like this site called apug and lfpinfo
and all those junque lenses i paid 10-30$ for shot up to 150-400$
and now even more ...
i mean stuff that was affordable and no one wanted that they gave away free with a bowl of soup
now costs like $700 ...
its amazing what a few articles will do for junk to make people think
its not junk but junque...

 

[Ces1um]

its funny
i used to buy old brass lenses for maybe 10-30$ each
then this guy in nevada named jim started using brass lenses
and writing articles on his website about them, and talking
on places like this site called apug and lfpinfo
and all those junque lenses i paid 10-30$ for shot up to 150-400$
and now even more ...
i mean stuff that was affordable and no one wanted that they gave away free with a bowl of soup
now costs like $700 ...
its amazing what a few articles will do for junk to make people think
its not junk but junque...

Yup, that's how advertising works. It creates a market by stirring up interest and that leads to demand which raises prices for the initial item. Nothing new there. Just playing on human nature.

 

[Pioneer]

its funny
i used to buy old brass lenses for maybe 10-30$ each
then this guy in nevada named jim started using brass lenses
and writing articles on his website about them, and talking
on places like this site called apug and lfpinfo
and all those junque lenses i paid 10-30$ for shot up to 150-400$
and now even more ...
i mean stuff that was affordable and no one wanted that they gave away free with a bowl of soup
now costs like $700 ...
its amazing what a few articles will do for junk to make people think
its not junk but junque...

I bought a nice old no-name Petzval off Etsy several years ago. Nice lens but I'm glad I didn't pay a lot for it. I have only used it a couple of times and the results were not for me.

I most certainly did not pay anywhere near $800 for it but then it didn't attach to a Canikon either.

 

[MattKing]

Kodak sold a lot of shit cameras too- box cameras with one shutter speed, point and shoots with one aperture and two shutter speeds, 110 cameras with plastic lenses. Hey, sounds exactly like lomography's low end plastic fantastic cameras. Being an old and once powerful company doesn't change the fact they made some crappy stuff too, and hyped it, and charged for it too.

Those Kodak (and similar) cameras were great cameras. They worked reliably, and gave the owners nice little snapshot photos when used in normal snapshot circumstances. They were also really cheap - often packaged with a roll of film and something like a flashcube, and often priced for not much more than the price of that roll of film and flash-cube.
Essentially, they were gateway drugs whistling, but they gave the results expected of them. And in some cases, those results excelled.
If you used them, most likely you were happy with their limited capabilities. And if you were not happy with those limitations, it was so easy to spend more to get more.
The hype was there, but the hype was about the package - camera, film and lab services.
I spent a number of years working in retail and with labs. I dealt with many people who used very simple cameras, and enjoyed the results.
Some of the Lomography products seem to give results that are \ were inferior to those basic cameras, at least with respect to issues of reliability. And the prices certainly seem higher.

 

[blockend]

Your eBay prices are a little off. You didn't factor in the guy that never ships your item and strings you along until you can't get eBay to refund your money. You also missed the guy that tells you that "it worked the last time I used it" - but that was 40 years ago and it doesn't work now. You didn't factor in the necessary CLA either. How about the one that says it's untested, which really is code for it's broken because he dropped it in the lake. Ebay blows. I'd rather pay 400 bucks for a crummy La Sardina camera from Lomography than ever use that site again. Ever. I also hate kijiji. Damn sellers never show up to the agreed upon time/location. If I can't buy it new off of a reputable company or find it in a brick and mortar store (even if it's an antique store where I can test it myself) then I want nothing to do with it. Your mileage may vary but there are lots of people out there like me. That's why Lomography has sales.

I've used eBay for years, and problems are generally confined to cult and aspirational cameras, not 80s P&S or 60s Kodaks. For example I bought a box of 25 point and shoot cameras for £5 two years ago, 24 of them worked, about half had working batteries and a few had half used film inside. I don't understand the mind set that says I'd rather pay 20 - 50 times as much for something than risk a poor experience. Surely half the fun of old cameras is seeing exactly how their output differs from current rendition, because the alternative is institutional quirkiness, which is like high street, off-the-peg Punk: missing the point.

If you see a Leica IIIg for £50 by all means smell a rat, but there are lots of 1950 and 60s fixed lens clickers hiding in drawers awaiting the light of day.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Not only that, but Holgas/Dianas can make exquisite images, in the right hands.

Exactly. Michael Kenna is a fan...

 

[AgX]

Wasn't just Kodak. Ilford, Ferrania, Agfa and plenty of others sold cheap cameras to go with their film back in the day. As you say, Lomography remind me of those companies in the 60s/70s

Part of the idea was to create a market for film, for consumables. Agfa even long time sold cameras at a loss.

 

[blockend]

Those Kodak (and similar) cameras were great cameras. They worked reliably, and gave the owners nice little snapshot photos when used in normal snapshot circumstances. They were also really cheap - often packaged with a roll of film and something like a flashcube, and often priced for not much more than the price of that roll of film and flash-cube.

That's true. The failure rate was low because the mechanical complexity was limited. If there isn't much to a camera there's little to go wrong. However mass market cameras weren't badly made, light leaks were rare, bodies held up, lens resolution was similar and they were made by the million. They were suitable for purpose, only disposable cameras were throwaway and most of those were well constructed. They were not toys.

What happened was Kodak in particular tried to save film costs and increase profit margins by creating ever smaller formats in increasingly complex cassettes and cartridges. A small negative taken with a simple lens looks different from a large negative with a similar lens. Holga has become identified with that look, but numerous cameras shot 120 roll film up to 6 x 9 through simple lens cameras. Most snapshots up to the early 1960s had beautiful tonal density, limited sharpness and a hint or more of vignetting.

 

[removed account4]

Exactly. Michael Kenna is a fan...

i can't imagine why anyone would
want a simple camera like that
EVERYONE knows real photographers
only use expensive stuff or name brand stuff from
like you know, 40-50years ago.
i bet he drinks expensive coffee
has a flannel shirt tied around his waist
wears a rasta-beenie, and ... has a blog or something
that guys a total hipster ...

 

[Jim Jones]

Kodak sold a lot of shit cameras too- box cameras with one shutter speed, point and shoots with one aperture and two shutter speeds, 110 cameras with plastic lenses. Hey, sounds exactly like lomography's low end plastic fantastic cameras. Being an old and once powerful company doesn't change the fact they made some crappy stuff too, and hyped it, and charged for it too.

Don't underestimate the early basic Kodaks. Many of the box cameras had a tripod socket, time exposure setting, and two or three apertures. The lens showed less curvature of field than many newer bottom end cameras. With thought and care, they could outlast and outperform today's fad gadgets.

 

[Ces1um]

Don't underestimate the early basic Kodaks. Many of the box cameras had a tripod socket, time exposure setting, and two or three apertures. The lens showed less curvature of field than many newer bottom end cameras. With thought and care, they could outlast and outperform today's fad gadgets.

Oh please don't take it that I feel that all of Kodak's cameras were low quality. I only mean some were. I believe many of their cameras were incredible as well. I'd love to have a pocket folding camera at some point. I just meant to point out that Kodak, a highly reputable brand also put out lower quality stuff that was priced to appeal to a mas market- a market similar (but not identical) to Lomography's current customer.

 

[Ces1um]

Don't underestimate the early basic Kodaks. Many of the box cameras had a tripod socket, time exposure setting, and two or three apertures. The lens showed less curvature of field than many newer bottom end cameras. With thought and care, they could outlast and outperform today's fad gadgets.

Oh, and to be honest- some of those poor quality cameras Kodak put out I'd still like to own. I don't mind the charms and idiosyncrasies (or flaws and false advertising depending on your personal opinions) that toy cameras provide. I have high end expensive camera gear and low end cheap gear. I can make nice photos and crap photos with them both. I don't know why people are so judgemental about certain companies (cough cough lomography cough).

 

[wyofilm]

It is heart breaking to see how little Kodak (Alaris) has to offer the film world beyond their excellent films. They are living off of yesterday's fat.

This is the link to Kodak Alaris' tips page for consumer photographers:
http://apps.kodakmoments.com/projects-center/

ugh ...

Frankly a trip through Lomography's website is a breath of fresh air to what the grey man had to offer.

 

[blockend]

Frankly a trip through Lomography's website is a breath of fresh air to what the grey man had to offer.

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?