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

[wyofilm]

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?

No to all of those, I think. But that is why I think that the current state of Kodak is heart breaking. They did so many wonderful things. Today they have flat-lined.

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.

 

[Cholentpot]

Very black and white to me.

Are people using more film?

Yes?

Good.

 

[blockend]

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.

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.

As I said on the first page of the thread, shooting in a less rule-bound way can pay dividends and I agree with Lomography's encouragement of such an approach. You don't need gratuitously quirky products or the application of large amounts of money to pursue that goal. You said "Frankly a trip through Lomography's website is a breath of fresh air to what the grey man had to offer", so I assumed you were using the past tense. Even Kodak Alaris's slimmed down range offers film photographers a more useful portfolio of products than Lomography.

 

[wyofilm]

I have provided countless examples of where lomo photographers use, often to very great effect, 'real' film and cameras. They embrace the cheap and the quality. Two minutes of browsing Lomo's online magazine should provide enough examples to assuage even the harshest critics. They DO grow to buy good films. Something we (and Kodak) should be doing cartwheel's over.

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). There might be fundamental reason's why such a joint venture isn't possible, but I wouldn't be surprised if it never crossed Kodak's mind with their eyes firmly set in the rearview mirror.

 

[Pioneer]

After having read through this particular thread a second time I think we have established one incontrovertible fact.

Those that like Lomography still like Lomography and have not changed their mind.

Those that can't stand Lomography still cannot stand Lomography and have not changed their mind.

I wonder what will happen in the next six pages??

 

[faberryman]

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.

 

[Pioneer]

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.

No, I don't think you are "all wrong." But nothing is "always" one way or the other.

Leicas are often carried about as fashion accessories today, but they are also often used for serious work.

A lot of people who are buying turntables and playing LP albums on them couldn't tell you the difference between an MP3 or an LP recording. For them it is fashionable to start up the turntable during their party.

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.

For those for whom it is currently a fashion fad, I doubt it would have ever been anything more. At least they are using film while being fashionable.

 

[eddie]

I first used Diana cameras in the mid to late 70's. There were a few of us photo majors playing with them. We bought them at Woolworth's for a buck or two. There was no "lomo" designation for them at that time- no one segregated them from other cameras to denigrate (or elevate) them. They were fun to shoot, cheap, and offered interesting, creative results. I think the real problem with people choosing sides regarding these cameras (Holgas/Dianas) is the fact that they've been given their own classification, much to the detriment of those cameras (and photography as a whole).

 

[blockend]

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).

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.

 

[faberryman]

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. 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.

 

[Pioneer]

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 was published in the Lomography magazine.

Tarred with the same brush maybe?

For that matter, and I think it has already been pointed out, whoever took those photos in that environment knew how to use their camera to get white snow instead of gray snow.

 

[blockend]

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.

 

[removed account4]

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.

It’s a state of mind thing, not a gear thing.
that is why a lot people get so riled up about lomography and
people being published in their magazine . to a lot of people its about
what camera and film you use, what sort of tripod you have .. if you use
a darkjacket, if you are using amidol and azo .. what sort of agitation
or non agitation scheme you used, in other words
the stuff that is least important ..
its just photography in a photography magazine...

its a good things this is in the philosophy and aesthetics forum !

 

[Ste_S]

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?

Apart from making their own film*, Lomography probably do more for growing the film community than anyone else to be honest. It was quite refreshing to go into their London 'gallery' shop, where unlike pretty much every other camera shop, they have actual photos on the wall. And indeed on a giant wall outside.

*Whilst Lomography don't actually make film, I'm glad they're keeping Kodak Gold going in 800ISO in 35 and 120 formats when Kodak don't want to

 

[blockend]

Lomography probably do more for growing the film community than anyone else to be honest

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.

 

[faberryman]

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.

Perhaps this is a good articulation of my uneasiness with lomography. It wraps a lifestyle around an aesthetic choice.

The Urban Dictionary has a number of definitions of lomography,

 

[eddie]

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.

You’re already a member of a film community. Welcome to Stepford...

I still don’t see it as a “lifestyle”. Most of the people I know shooting plastic cameras don’t fit the young, “hipster” definition. They’re older, accomplished photographers who see these cameras as excellent creative tools. It’s people who lump all Lomo shooters together, casting them as “others” who are doing a disservice to creative image making.

 

[blockend]

You’re already a member of a film community. Welcome to Stepford...

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?

 

[eddie]

Even though it’s an Internet forum, it is a community.

 

[Ces1um]

Even though it’s an Internet forum, it is a community.

A fairly cranky community at that sometimes....

 

[removed account4]

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?

the thing is even if the users of lomo cameras don't call themselves lomographers
people who don't like them call them lomographers as a put down...
and the sad thing is the people who do all the putting down
use less film, process less film go shooting less
and make fewer prints than their cousin with the lomo..
while they are trying to think up more insults or harsh commentary
the people shooting the lomo have purchased and used in 3 months the same amount of film
the insult slinger uses in a year ... they should be grateful for the lomo users
because they are pulling 4x more than their own weight.

 

[Ste_S]

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.

If you prefer i'll drop the word community. Lomography probably does more than any other company to get new people into shooting film

 

[blockend]

Lomography probably does more than any other company to get new people into shooting film

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.

As I said previously, if Lomography is not equipment I have no idea what it is. Japanese photographers were shooting "blurry, grainy, out of focus... often unbalanced and even casually framed, (and) were a laugh in the face of what was then traditionally considered a good photograph". "Clarity isn’t what photography is about," said Moriyama. That was half a century ago, so clearly Lomography has no claim to that approach.

Toy cameras were being shot as serious tools by known photographers like Nancy Rexroth since 1970, and lesser known ones before or since. I personally know someone who exhibited toy camera photography in the 1970s. Clearly, the brand has no claim to either the camera type or the style. Thousands of people shot on Soviet equipment in Western Europe from the 1960s, so the source of the material is not the definition of the term. So what is Lomography if it isn't a photographic equipment company? Beats me. It seems like Lomography is just photography, and as that has been around for close to 200 years, I prefer the original title.

 

[baachitraka]

Lomography is an evolution...

 

[blockend]

Lomography is an evolution...

To accepting more expensive film and worse cameras as the norm?