Video in today's "Age" makes me less annoyed by Lomography...

[munz6869]

http://media.theage.com.au/technology/tech-talk/lomography-instagrams-analogue-alternative-3218916.html - especially as it's presented as an alternative to Instamatic!! How that can be valued at more than all of Kodak, presents a Capitalist mystery, the likes of which I will never understand...

Marc!

 

[CGW]

http://media.theage.com.au/technology/tech-talk/lomography-instagrams-analogue-alternative-3218916.html - especially as it's presented as an alternative to Instamatic!! How that can be valued at more than all of Kodak, presents a Capitalist mystery, the likes of which I will never understand...

Marc!

It's little more than an attempt to "brand" film photography with a sprinkle of aspirational hipster dust. It's doing nada for surviving pro labs with struggling film lines.

 

[Yamaotoko]

What an ingenious idea, using CAMERAS to take PHOTOS! My goodness people annoy me... I had a few minutes to have a look on Facebook before dinner, which I haven't done in a long time... My mrs was amazed at just how angry with the whole world those 5 minutes had made me, every idiot and his dog thinking they've stumbled onto the newest, greatest idea, taking photos of their dinner with a rainbow cast and a tattered edge frame... People are so stupid... I'm going back to using Facebook to just tell me family what I'm up to... I might even use a real camera to take some photos of that family too...

 

[X. Phot.]

http://media.theage.com.au/technology/tech-talk/lomography-instagrams-analogue-alternative-3218916.html - especially as it's presented as an alternative to Instamatic!! How that can be valued at more than all of Kodak, presents a Capitalist mystery, the likes of which I will never understand...

Marc!

Marc, You were able to extract information from the presentation that I was not. Is it possible that you posted the incorrect link. The presentation I watched was about a business concern in London that sold cameras and provided service. Selling product and services to customers is typical of most business concerns. Though the Kodak name was mentioned once as I recall, that's no reason for concern. Many manufacturers of film and cameras will still find a ways to profit, keeping these products and services on the market, even if it's just in a small way.

I didn't see anything about Kodak Instamatic cameras either, and that's why I suspect we're not watching the same video. I recall the Instamatic cameras perty much fizzling out in the late 70's. At least I don't recall much of anybody in the 80's using them. By then most everyone I knew was using 35mm film one way or another. How Lomo cameras would be an alternative to Instamatics is beyond me, having occupied different time-frames. Yet another reason I suspect we're not watching the same video.

 

[LJH]

I think that he was comparing the recent sale of an App (Instagram) to the alleged value of Kodak.

If so, I agree.

Mind you, I wonder what Rubic's Cube was valued at in 1982?

 

[munz6869]

To clarify,

I don't disagree with the ephemeral hipster critique of Lomography - I was so disappointed by the plastic rubbish when I went to the Lomo shop in Vienna a few years ago - I think it's the first time EVER I've been in some kind of photographic shop without buying something! However, in the light of iphone app 'Instagram' selling (to Facebook) for a reported US$1billion dollars, a ridiculous number by any measure (and more than the net worth of Kodak), I would much rather see any kind of media about film, than an iphone app that pretends to be film... in summation: this is a crazy world sometimes.

Marc!

 

[raoul]

I'm annoyed by the constant use of 'film' borders -> especially colour photos with an 'Ilford' label

 

[X. Phot.]

Thank you Marc for the clarification. That puts things in a different light.

My opinion on that is fairly basic . . . I just see it as a business concern trying to make a go-of-it using existing products and services. Though the video presentation does make a plug for an unrelated cellphone software application, it is still primarily about the film cameras. Does it matter that this concern is selling a line of cameras made up of inexpensive film cameras? After all, there was another concern, a "big-name concern" that manufactured cheap & inexpensive cameras for many decades. They made a science out of making photography affordable. Cardboard cameras, tin cameras, and inexpensive wood box cameras. I don't recall seeing articles debating their making a $1.00 camera, for example. I'm perty sure at the time, the general public appreciated having access to an inexpensive solution to photography. I don't see this Lomoscopy being any different. It sells cameras, film, processing services, it creates jobs, and fills a niche in the market. All is good.

 

[Moopheus]

Thank you Marc for the clarification. That puts things in a different light.

My opinion on that is fairly basic . . . I just see it as a business concern trying to make a go-of-it using existing products and services.

Really. I don't see why some people here make such a fuss about Lomography. They've figured out a way to get film into the hands of lots of people who might otherwise not see it or care. This is more than Kodak, Fuji, or most of us, for that matter, have managed to do of late. So what if it's just "marketing to hipsters"? Many here complain that Kodak doesn't do enough to market film, and when someone actually does that, they complain even more!

 

[cliveh]

The next fashion craze maybe Leicaography, but the shop would have to be in Bond Street.

 

[CGW]

Thank you Marc for the clarification. That puts things in a different light.

My opinion on that is fairly basic . . . I just see it as a business concern trying to make a go-of-it using existing products and services. Though the video presentation does make a plug for an unrelated cellphone software application, it is still primarily about the film cameras. Does it matter that this concern is selling a line of cameras made up of inexpensive film cameras? After all, there was another concern, a "big-name concern" that manufactured cheap & inexpensive cameras for many decades. They made a science out of making photography affordable. Cardboard cameras, tin cameras, and inexpensive wood box cameras. I don't recall seeing articles debating their making a $1.00 camera, for example. I'm perty sure at the time, the general public appreciated having access to an inexpensive solution to photography. I don't see this Lomoscopy being any different. It sells cameras, film, processing services, it creates jobs, and fills a niche in the market. All is good.

Problem is, though, that Dianas, Holgas and other toys are dead-end products with zero flexibility. They're also not cheap. Lots of operable 35mm gear that's priced under this stuff. No? Check these prices:

Dead Link Removed

 

[Moopheus]

Problem is, though, that Dianas, Holgas and other toys are dead-end products with zero flexibility.

Apparently, the Lomography folks feel that is basically not true. And do what if it is? They have their limitations. Many cameras sold through the years have had limitations.

They're also not cheap. Lots of operable 35mm gear that's priced under this stuff. No? Check these prices:

Dead Link Removed

Which would be sad if the Lomography users were interested in conventional 35mm gear, which it appears they are not. Is that what makes people mad? Admittedly, you can also buy "vintage" Dianas and Diana clones for a few bucks. You have to search for them, though, since they lack convenient distribution through Urban Outfitters. But I also don't think it necessarily makes sense to say that new gear is overpriced when used gear is cheaper. I mean, one expects used gear to be cheaper; it's used. And: most models of "real" 35mm cameras are out of production, so which is really the dead end? And did the Lomo folks sell on the promise of being the least-expensive option? Is cheapness the goal?

People are buying cameras, film, having fun with it. This is good.

 

[CGW]

Apparently, the Lomography folks feel that is basically not true. And do what if it is? They have their limitations. Many cameras sold through the years have had limitations.




Which would be sad if the Lomography users were interested in conventional 35mm gear, which it appears they are not. Is that what makes people mad? Admittedly, you can also buy "vintage" Dianas and Diana clones for a few bucks. You have to search for them, though, since they lack convenient distribution through Urban Outfitters. But I also don't think it necessarily makes sense to say that new gear is overpriced when used gear is cheaper. I mean, one expects used gear to be cheaper; it's used. And: most models of "real" 35mm cameras are out of production, so which is really the dead end? And did the Lomo folks sell on the promise of being the least-expensive option? Is cheapness the goal?

People are buying cameras, film, having fun with it. This is good.

Whatever. Lomos are mostly an impulse buy. Either they break or poor results coupled with film/development costs prompt shooters to ditch them. They're not doing much for film sales or labs in my area. Anyone serious about film shooting quickly moves on to one of those "out of production" 35mm SLRs that are almost free now. The goal is keeping Lomo stores afloat by pushing merch out the door.

 

[Plate Voltage]

I'm not one to defend lomography at all but I do feel the need to point this fact out: All cameras have limitations.

Any kind of equipment has limitations. People, as customers have to decide what limitations they can work with when they buy things. For example, my stereo amplifier has limitations. It's maximum power output is about 36 watts per channel, so it won't be able to drive a pair of low efficiency speakers to fill a large room with loud volumes of sound and since it's a tube amp, it won't amplify DC because it isn't direct coupled. Neither are a requirement so I can live with that. If I needed higher power output and the ability to amplify direct current, I'd have bought something like one of the direct coupled power amps that Marantz made back in the lave 70s or designed and built something of my own.

 

[CGW]

I'm not one to defend lomography at all but I do feel the need to point this fact out: All cameras have limitations.

And some cameras are pretty much all limitations. Holgas and 35mm toys were fun when cheap dev/print service was available a few years back but not now.

 

[Moopheus]

. Either they break or poor results coupled with film/development costs prompt shooters to ditch them.

I'll bet my 70s-vintage Diana works as well as it did when new!

They're not doing much for film sales or labs in my area. Anyone serious about film shooting quickly moves on to one of those "out of production" 35mm SLRs that are almost free now.

So if someone got interested in film because of Lomo, and then got a better camera, Lomo is bad? (Is everyone in Ontario always so durned serious?)

I moved on to an Agfa Clack.

[/QUOTE]

 

[CGW]

I'll bet my 70s-vintage Diana works as well as it did when new!





So if someone got interested in film because of Lomo, and then got a better camera, Lomo is bad? (Is everyone in Ontario always so durned serious?)

I moved on to an Agfa Clack.

[/QUOTE]

Gateway drugs are always the problem, right?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

The link is cryptic. What is being referred to? Is there another that has been omitted??

 

[Colin D]

A lot of the "hipsters" using these plastic cams are way below my age but if it leads them to become obsessed with better quality film cameras and particularly LF cameras and they help keep the market alive then that has to be a good thing. I see lots of bright young things coming out of camera stores holding negatives taken in their weird plastic camera and hope they are the next generation of quality film camera lovers. The iphone ap thing is starting to annoy me, people are loading their shots in sites dedicated to film shots, get out or get a real camera.

 

[amsp]

I agree with above sentiment. The first thing I saw when I went to a new lab a couple of weeks ago were two young girls handing in their negatives taken with a Holga, if that's what it takes for labs to stay open and for the next generation to be excited about film photography then I'm all for it.

 

[CGW]

I agree with above sentiment. The first thing I saw when I went to a new lab a couple of weeks ago were two young girls handing in their negatives taken with a Holga, if that's what it takes for labs to stay open and for the next generation to be excited about film photography then I'm all for it.

This has already been beaten to death here recently. It amounts to a drop in an almost-empty, leaky bucket. Lomo shooters won't make any difference and won't turn the clock back for film.

 

[amsp]

This has already been beaten to death here recently. It amounts to a drop in an almost-empty, leaky bucket. Lomo shooters won't make any difference and won't turn the clock back for film.

Well, I looked at your other posts around here and "doom & gloom" seems to be your schtick, at least you're consistent. We'll just agree to disagree I guess.

 

[CGW]

Well, I looked at your other posts around here and "doom & gloom" seems to be your schtick, at least you're consistent. We'll just agree to disagree I guess.

I love film. I'm just not into fabulism or magical thinking in the face of reality(i.e., doom and gloom?).

 

[amsp]

I love film. I'm just not into fabulism or magical thinking in the face of reality(i.e., doom and gloom?).

I don't see what's magical about it? You seem to think film is going to die completely, and quickly at that, I don't. Not for a second. I'm not saying things are ever going to be like before digital, but things will stabilize and will probably even grow some after that. Much like vinyl records there will always be people who appreciate them, and usually there is some renewed interest in older technology once the new one becomes commonplace and boring. The fact that things are turbulent right now is normal when going from a high-volume market leading situation to a niche one. The market will adjust though and there is even room for new entrepreneurs to step in where maybe "older giants" failed because of lack of imagination or too much overhead. Even if companies like Kodak and Fuji were to stop making film all together I'm sure someone would step in and fill the demand at a lower scale. I think the Impossible Project and to some degree Lomo is a perfect example of this.

 

[CGW]

I don't see what's magical about it? You seem to think film is going to die completely, and quickly at that, I don't. Not for a second. I'm not saying things are ever going to be like before digital, but things will stabilize and will probably even grow some after that. Much like vinyl records there will always be people who appreciate them, and usually there is some renewed interest in older technology once the new one becomes commonplace and boring. The fact that things are turbulent right now is normal when going from a high-volume market leading situation to a niche one. The market will adjust though and there is even room for new entrepreneurs to step in where maybe "older giants" failed because of lack of imagination or too much overhead. Even if companies like Kodak and Fuji were to stop making film all together I'm sure someone would step in and fill the demand at a lower scale. I think the Impossible Project and to some degree Lomo is a perfect example of this.

Think you just confirmed my point. Let's see where we all stand at the end of 2012.