The possible origin of Lomography?

[George Mann]

It seems that a man by the name of Miroslav Tichý from the Czech Republic took nearly a hundred low-grade photographs a day with his primitive homemade cameras. More at the link below (Nudity, NSFW).

https://www.messynessychic.com/2013...ng-tom-photographer-and-his-cardboard-camera/

 

[AgX]

Would he be the origin, then there would be a link in time.

But there is not. To the contrary. The Lomography manifesto was published in 1992. But Tichy seems not to have got to be known before 2004.

 

[reddesert]

Not sure if this is intended to be a serious inquiry into Lomography, but:
The Diana toy camera of the 1960s and 1970s (imagine a Holga without all the precision and refinements) was used by some photographers and photography instruction to get away from a gear emphasis. There was also an exhibition "The Diana Show" of submissions from many different photographers using the Diana, and a small book of it (ed. by David Featherstone) was published by the Friends of Photography - here's a brief review: https://jayarichardson.com/the-diana-show You can find the book on many used-book websites.

This was all pretty widely known at the time and written up in photography mags etc. The Diana went out of production sometime in the 1970s and actually achieved "collectible" status in the 1990s (since most of them had gotten discarded). Obviously I can't know what influenced the Lomographic mind, and they started off with the Lomo cameras before reviving the Diana and others, but the toy camera, embrace-the-accidents philosophy had been around before Lomography re-popularized it.

I had a Diana in the 1970s as a child, but it aggravated me (especially the light leaks) and I wasn't ready to write the Dianagraphic manifesto, unfortunately.

 

[George Mann]

Would he be the origin, then there would be a link in time.

But there is not. To the contrary. The Lomography manifesto was published in 1992. But Tichy seems not to have got to be known before 2004.

It isn't necessary for the others to have known him for us to consider him the first.

 

[awty]

He made his own lens and camera's out of bits and pieces, each of his cameras were unique to him, completely different to cheap ready made considerable cameras, which were around at the same time.

 

[removed account4]

George Mann
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningradskoye_Optiko-Mekhanicheskoye_Obyedinenie
that is what LOMO(graphy) is from, it has nothing to do with Miroslav Tichý. He created his own
cameras and lenses from scratch.
His aesthetic has nothing to do with LOMO(graphy) either.

When I was working in Cambridge MA in the 1990s a friend came up to me and gave me a Lubitel 166 ( which eventually broke when I was using it )
it was given to him by friends from Vienna who were starting a group called the Lomographic Society.

It isn't necessary for the others to have known him for us to consider him the first.

What is it you are suggesting he is the first of/to do paper negatives?

 

[AgX]

It isn't necessary for the others to have known him for us to consider him the first.

Someone being the first is completely different from being the origin.
For the latter the work/idea of the first has to be known to the others to follow him.

 

[eddie]

I always thought the term Lomography was derived from LOMO, the Russian company which made Lubitels and cinema lenses. Lubitels weren't known for quality (I do have a Lubitel 2, and would disagree with that assessment) and Lomography became the term used for any low quality camera- Holga, Diana, etc.

I also remember having Dianas in the mid-70's. There were a few people in school using them. You could get them for $1.00 at Woolworth's and other discount stores. If we were feeling rich, we'd buy 2 at a time (poor students). If I had known what they'd sell for now....
There was a wedding of two grad students in '78, or '79. Each table at the reception had a basket of Dianas, and everyone was asked to shoot one. The couple spent part of their summer developing the film and printing the results.

 

[AgX]

I always thought the term Lomography was derived from LOMO, the Russian company which made Lubitels and cinema lenses.

Yes, and no...
It was derived from the 1983 camera Lomo LC-A which the founders of the later Lomography firm imported to Western-Europe in 1991.
The camera of course bears the name of the big manufacturer Lomo. However this model was not actually theirs, but instead is a copy of the Cosina CX, the model thus already appeared in the West long before...


Moreover, the LC-A was exported to the West before, in the 80s... partially with additional marking of "Zenith" or "Zenit", which actually was a brand of KMZ. But as KMZ and Lomo had a joint venture Belomo, that might have allowed this branding. Maybe it was an idea of a western importer in first instance.

 

[removed account4]

Yes, and no...
It was derived from the 1983 camera Lomo LC-A which the founders of the later Lomography firm imported to Western-Europe in 1991.
The camera of course bears the name of the big manufacturer Lomo. However this model was not actually theirs, but instead is a copy of the Cosina CX, the model thus already appeared in the West long before...


Moreover, the LC-A was exported to the West before, in the 80s... partially with additional marking of "Zenith" or "Zenit", which actually was a brand of KMZ. But as KMZ and Lomo had a joint venture Belomo, that might have allowed this branding. Maybe it was an idea of a western importer in first instance.

you mean it wasn't made out of cardboard ???

 

[George Mann]

George Mann
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningradskoye_Optiko-Mekhanicheskoye_Obyedinenie
that is what LOMO(graphy) is from, it has nothing to do with Miroslav Tichý. He created his own
cameras and lenses from scratch.

The technical origin of the cameras used for Lomography is a different matter from the purposeful act of taking low-grade/defective pictures.

His aesthetic has nothing to do with LOMO(graphy) either.

Outside of the equipment used, I fail to see how they differ.

What is it you are suggesting he is the first of/to do paper negatives?

I never implied such a thing.

 

[removed account4]

The technical origin of the cameras used for Lomography is a different matter from the purposeful act of taking low-grade/defective pictures.
Outside of the equipment used, I fail to see how they differ.
I never implied such a thing.

low grade defective pictures ?
i guess it is a matter of taste..
not everything is high end film and digital gear
travel photos to exotic places and commerical work...
lomo users are enjoying their hobby, and Miroslav Tichý
was living in an eastern block country, making his own cameras
and lenses and shooting paper negatives not film. he was a flat broke
and made photographs the best he could. personally i find the work that he did
and that some lo-fi users are doing to be much more interesting than slick commerical work.
commerical work and "the opposite of lomography and Miroslav Tichý" is whitewashed and leaves
less to the imagination.
as they say YMMVFTSITW

 

[Rudolf Karachun]

Lomo manufactured simple plastic cameras called Smena since 1957. Those cameras was really cheap and simple, but I wudnt call pictures creepy. I remember when I had just only one camera, it was a Zorky 6, and want on the vacation do b&w negatives and color slides in the same time, I just go to the store and got new or used Smena for slides. After vacation I sell it, or give to somebody even for free. That cheap it was.

 

[Rudolf Karachun]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smena_(camera)
More information including the origination of Lomography.

 

[AgX]

Miroslav Tichý was living in an eastern block country.

In the Eastern Block there was greater choice of camera gear than most people here are aware of. Problem for many though was difficult availability outside big cities. Another issue was the high price in respect to income. The CSSR though was one of the wealthier states with highest living standard, Tichy's situation aside.


(Some professional USSR photographers had gear that would make an Apugger envy...).

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have no idea what was twisted in OP's mind. Some horny wierdo has nothing to do with Lomography.
Him and Lomography are well known in this world.
BBC made full length documentary with Lomography originators. It was available online last time I was reading some odd things about Lomography.

 

[removed account4]

In the Eastern Block there was greater choice of camera gear than most people here are aware of. Problem for many though was difficult availability outside big cities. Another issue was the high price in respect to income. The CSSR though was one of the wealthier states with highest living standard, Tichy's situation aside.


(Some professional USSR photographers had gear that would make an Apugger envy...).

I know!! I have an Eastern Block camera I use currently and it is my favorite camera at the moment
My comment was really directed towards TIchy's living situation more than anything else .. reminding the OP
that his cameras and lenses were not made of high grade materials like other gear a photographer might have used. and yes lomo cameras are high grade gear !

Either way the sort of images he and free-wheeling-lomoesque photographers made/make might be an acquired taste.. and might not
reach the commercial grade standards someone shooing assignments for magazines and commerical clients may have. But then again
https://www.davidburnett.com

 

[George Mann]

and yes lomo cameras are high grade gear !

So when is Leica going to introduce their next LOMO camera?

 

[AgX]

The world's photos were taken with "Lomo" etc. cameras, not with Leicas.


Leitz was too arrogant to make consumer cameras. Lomo acted on fields from high-end optics to consumer cameras.

 

[removed account4]

So when is Leica going to introduce their next LOMO camera?

Lomo is making a beautiful petzval 35mm lens, they are selling tens of thousands of cameras and rolls of film. They are pretty much the reason
you are able to buy film today.
Dissing Lomography/LOMO or anyone who shoots these types of cameras and films
is really the last thing you should be doing.
It is too bad you actually aren't grateful that they are marketing chemical photography and everything that goes along with it to keep it alive.

Maybe in 1900 you'would have been badmouthing George Eastman/Kodak and Alfred Harman/Ilford too, you know for catering to the "consumer class"

 

[eddie]

I've never considered any of my plastic camera images defective. I find working with them freeing, especially after lugging around LF cameras, meters, etc. To me, the serendipitous nature of these cameras is a strong draw. Occasionally, I'm gifted with a winner.

 

[AgX]

Lomo is making a beautiful petzval 35mm lens, they are selling tens of thousands of cameras and rolls of film.

Not Lomo, but Lomography. Two completely different firms. Lomo has stopped making consumer cameras years ago.
Or are they those who make that lens for Lomography...? Who knows...

 

[George Mann]

Dissing Lomography/LOMO or anyone who shoots these types of cameras and films is really the last thing you should be doing.

Its funny how quickly people jump to such conclusions!

It is too bad you actually aren't grateful that they are marketing chemical photography and everything that goes along with it to keep it alive.

They may be contributing, but they are hardly the main backbone of the industry!

Maybe in 1900 you'would have been badmouthing George Eastman/Kodak and Alfred Harman/Ilford too, you know for catering to the "consumer class"

Have you been drinking?

 

[removed account4]

Its funny how quickly people jump to such conclusions!

not really jumping to conclusions at all.
have you read the condescending comments you have made ?

 

[George Mann]

not really jumping to conclusions at all.
have you read the condescending comments you have made ?

In your mind perhaps, but not in mine.