The possible origin of Lomography?

[removed account4]

In your mind perhaps, but not in mine.

you refer to people's work as defective why do you suggest that images produced by this sort of camera/lens/&c are
"defective"?

 

[jtk]

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

 

[awty]

Its great for society to have diverse opinions and debate.

 

[George Mann]

you refer to people's work as defective why do you suggest that images produced by this sort of camera/lens/&c are
"defective"?

Objectively they are, but I understand the artistic intent.

 

[removed account4]

Objectively they are, but I understand the artistic intent.

You really haven't said why you said they are defective.

 

[George Mann]

You really haven't said why you said they are defective.

Do I really need to explain this one?

 

[wahiba]

LOMO on cameras was around long before some Austrian students discovered the name. I recall in the 70s a clockwork wound 35mm that had the Lomo brand name. I am sure it was also on some cine kit in the UK in the 1960s. It is just a Russian trade name.

 

[AgX]

LOMO... is just a Russian trade name.

It is the name of one of the USSR major opto-mechanical works, even older than USSR itself. They were active on the field of consumer cameras, commercial optics, scientific optics and military optics. They made a huge variety of products. In smaller form they are still active today, though no longer with cosumer cameras,a sector they skipped with the demise of the USSR.

 

[removed account4]

Do I really need to explain this one?

George Mann:
Are images created by David Burnett defective ? ..
https://www.davidburnett.com/galler...folio=Galleries&vimeoUserID=&vimeoAlbumID=#/0
or does he get a free pass because he is part of the press corps, and an established professional?

What is the cut off, if there is one, for a camera to make photographs that aren't defective? If it has to do with camera price and brilliance of optics, I have seen an awful lot of less than stellar imagery made by folks who purchased expensive top of the line photography equipment.

 

[George Mann]

George Mann:
Are images created by David Burnett defective ? ..
https://www.davidburnett.com/galler...folio=Galleries&vimeoUserID=&vimeoAlbumID=#/0
or does he get a free pass because he is part of the press corps, and an established professional?

What is the cut off, if there is one, for a camera to make photographs that aren't defective? If it has to do with camera price and brilliance of optics, I have seen an awful lot of less than stellar imagery made by folks who purchased expensive top of the line photography equipment.

Stop trolling me with these nonsensical questions. Today's Lomography is about making less than perfect images with technically defective cameras, as well as expired film.

 

[removed account4]

Stop trolling me with these nonsensical questions. Today's Lomography is about making less than perfect images with technically defective cameras, as well as expired film.

Not trolling or posing nonsensical questions, but you are trolling and insulting people who use cameras like the lomography cameras, or lensbaby stuff, or dianas, holgas &c, people who are well respected press photographers and artists and claiming their photographs are defective via blanket statement.
Its too bad you throw pot shots, it would have been in interesting "conversation" within the philosophy/aesthetics forum seeing all the photographs on your website look "picture perfect" and some folks in this thread, while they are able to make picture perfect photographs, don't, and they use "technically defective cameras and expired film".

 

[George Mann]

you are trolling and insulting people who use cameras like the lomography cameras, or lensbaby stuff, or dianas, holgas

Again, this is all in your head!

 

[removed account4]

Have you been drinking?

Perhaps you should stop making comments like this when people ask you to clarify what you are talking about ?

 

[George Mann]

Perhaps you should stop making blanket statements ?

Perhaps YOU should stop responding to my posts!

 

[removed account4]

Perhaps YOU should stop responding to my posts!

Its like checks and balances ... You make offensive statements, offended people respond your comments.
Yes I use Lo Fi gear and yes I was offended by your blanket statement that work people produce with this gear is DEFECTIVE, and then you say its all in my head ?
As I said, perhaps you should stop making offensive blanket statements and insulting people?

 

[George Mann]

and then you say its all in my head ?

Every bit of it!

As I said, perhaps you should stop making offensive blanket statements and insulting people?

You really need to mind your own business!

 

[MattKing]

I wonder if this is how the Beatles - in particular John and George of course - broke up?

 

[MattKing]

And George, you should consider joining into the Toy and Box Camera print exchange, because it might open your eyes to the benefits of the limits that less capable equipment can impose.

 

[removed account4]

You really need to mind your own business!

LOL you insult & offend me and then tell me not to respond and to mind my own business ?
You are hillarious ! I know your user name isn't really your name, are you really Allen Funt, and is this Candid Camera ?
Or are you really the 13 year old girl from down the street trolling me ?

ROTFLMFAO

 

[George Mann]

And George, you should consider joining into the Toy and Box Camera print exchange, because it might open your eyes to the benefits of the limits that less capable equipment can impose.

My eyes are not closed to any possibilities.

 

[Truzi]

Where's an eating-popcorn emoji when you need one?

So, speaking of Lomography, the student tech we have who recently acquired a Cannon AE-1 asked if I have a medium format camera. To which I said I have an Holga from before they were cool. I've also a Bronica GS-1. I'll have to let him play with them sometime.

 

[eddie]

I think of plastic, low-tech cameras as idiosyncratic, not defective. I have about 15 Dianas and Holgas. Each is unique and presents distinctive results. They can be wonderful creative tools. I've sold a lot of images I've made with them. In terms of return against investment, they've paid for themselves a few hundred times each.

 

[removed account4]

eddie
its obvious you made a mistake you said they present distinctive results, i think you mean defective results. I know what you are getting at, that the use of those terrible plastic cameras are creative tools, but creativity is over rated and is for people who lack imagination, and the ability to purchase, borrow, rent non-low-tech-gear. As for the people who purchased the images from you, obviously they were uneducated. I gather if you had told them the type of camera you used, the photographs would have been utterly worthless.