I KNEW it! I had a '72 powder blue bug. Also the best car I ever had. Until it was rear-ended by a 3/4-ton pickup driven by a 16-year-old. Tore the engine loose and pushed it into the back seat. A total loss. I still have my keys.
Ken
It was indeed a '72...
On. Side note, A very popular camera company used to make a camera that only had one shutter speed and a fixed crappy single lens camera that cost the equivalent of more than $200 that sometimes had light leaks and limited in the hands of hip amateurs... They called them "Kodak's" :whistles:
The idea that those who use "lomo" cameras are so ignorant and ill-informed that they are incapable of looking further than wacky colours and light leaks ... well, I think it's a false assumption based on limited evidence, shall we say ...
it's kind of sucks that photographers ( digital or chemical ) are so insecure
they have to cut down people who don't practice the same sort of photography as them.
i'd rather look at a stack of "flawed" images than a handful of clinical ones
What's funny, is that you can practice "lomography" with any camera.
Sometimes I do it with my Rolleiflex, sometimes I do it with my Hasselblad.
I even do it with my Leica, Nikons, and Pentax 6x7 occasionally. Lomography is simply the overcoming of obsession with technical limitations and theory, and just giving plain old serendipity a chance.
Sometimes I shoot my 6x7 without the lens mounted, just held in front of the mount, so that I can tilt and shift as I please. A shroud of black duct tape is a serviceable enough bellows. That's pretty f*cking lomo, if you ask me.
Who cares if they're overpriced, dark-boxes with coke-bottle lenses?
We are all familiar with the scan in the image then shrink it down to 380x256 and apply sharpening trick. Not sure what that has to do with legitimate lens evaluation though. And as was pointed out you can get Canon's most advanced "prosumer" 35mm SLR and a nifty fifty for less than Lomography is selling a Dead Link Removed. The question is why not have a more versatile, more reliable, easier to use camera that costs less? Only in the realm of "art" would someone argue against that.
What century was that? We were discussing 2012. With that logic Kodak should have shut down R&D in the 40's.
Yeah that's why Lomo shooters appear on the internet wondering what high resolution scanner they should use to scan in the cross processed transparencies taken with their plastic lenses. I wasn't born knowing everything about photography. After years of interest in the hobby I feel like I still only know a tiny fraction of what there is to know. This is in spite of taking formal photography courses in high school and college. A lot of things in photography are not intuitive. And if you are living in a digital world and are introduced to film photography by an organization who has a vested interest in selling plastic cameras then I rather doubt you are going to figure out the true FACTS about film photography. When people see images I produce they are often surprised to find out I used a film camera. They just assume film cameras are cumbersome, low fidelity, unpredictable, relics. Lomography reinforces that misconception. Some people will eventually get a clue. I'm worried about the others that don't and leave they Lomography experience with a skewed view of what film photography is all about. And worse yet spread the misinformation to others.
Photography is like any discipline. All participants benefit from a structured start learning the basics. Now it doesn't have to be some protracted long drawn out course at a four year university. But the basics of light, aperture, shutter speed, and ISO should be taught to a hobbyist. I find it saves people from having to rack their brains trying to figure out how did someone get that shot. There is plenty of time for that on more advanced topics. Every single person I have steered away from Lomography and explained the basics of photography has thanked me. For a very modest sum they have picked up used cameras that are quite versatile. They are thrilled that for less money they have a tool that they will not outgrow. I love showing my DSLR shooting friends how they can get into film photography for as little at $10. Lomography.com isn't going to tell them they can pick up a $10 Nikon or Canon at goodwill and use all their DSLR lens. No. Lomography.com is going to tell them they need to drop $200-$300+ on some plastic light leak box to shoot film.
I love how making an objective statement about a capitalistic marketing campaign means you are "insecure." Do you think when the Lomo shooting hipsters get on the human mic at Zuccotti Park and rant about Goldman Sachs' mortgage backed securities they are being "insecure" or do you think they have a legitimate gripe against a deceptive business practice?
So the advice everyone gives to edit your collection is wrong?
True. But Lomography doesn't want you to spend $20 on ebay and buy a Canon you can use with all your great digital lenses. Noooo.... They want you to spend $300+ and buy their stupid plastic light leak box. That's what I have a problem with. And frankly with the advent of digital my spontaneous shooting went way up. It's counter intuitive to go practice lomography with medium format film and a plastic lens. You can do far more experiments with a DSLR. Actually I use my DSLR as a test bed for a lot of things and then transfer what I have learned over to film for the final shot. Obviously the cross processing can't be prototyped on digital. And a lot of my B&W filter experimentation can't be done on digital.
I understand that a plastic lens imparts certain characteristics but I don't' understand why you need medium format film to record it. I also understand light leaks can be cool but I don't understand paying MORE for them.
I don't. What I have a problem with is marketing them to amateurs that don't know any better and perpetuating certain myths about film photography. Why do people scream whenever an exec at a digital company makes a false statement about film photography but defenders come out of the wood work when it is lomography.com?
There is simply no need for the majority of what lomography.com sells. Frankly I am shocked SHOCKED that we have a situation where numerous excellent film cameras are simply being tossed out and people are praising, PRAISING a company that against this backdrop is manufacturing thousands of PLASTIC cameras and marketing them through Urban Outfitters. Am I to understand no one gives a damn about the environment? Examine this bizarre situation objectively and tell me this is a responsible way to behave. I understand it is a free country and they are free to conduct their business within the bounds of the law but I am astonished that "artists" so comfortably turn a blind eye to this disease that capitalism produced.
They have fun. They have the money to spend. Who the hell cares what other people spend money on?There is simply no need for the majority of what lomography.com sells. Frankly I am shocked SHOCKED that we have a situation where numerous excellent film cameras are simply being tossed out and people are praising, PRAISING a company that against this backdrop is manufacturing thousands of PLASTIC cameras and marketing them through Urban Outfitters. Am I to understand no one gives a damn about the environment? Examine this bizarre situation objectively and tell me this is a responsible way to behave. I understand it is a free country and they are free to conduct their business within the bounds of the law but I am astonished that "artists" so comfortably turn a blind eye to this disease that capitalism produced.
Also, for the record. Lomography didn't start out being a company. It was just an idea, and a way of seeing things.
Considering that all they have to do is search 'film photography' on Google to see that this is not the case, why be worried about that?
i'd rather look at a stack of "flawed" images than a handful of clinical ones
So the advice everyone gives to edit your collection is wrong?
So the advice everyone gives to edit your collection is wrong?
Okay that's one vote for not caring about the environment. Anyone else?
For the record most great capitalists aren't innovative inventors. They just know how to take the work of the true innovators and inventors and manipulate the patent, copyright, and legal system to their advantage. Never make the mistake of thinking just because someone has seven+ figures in their bank account they have provided mankind with some astonishing useful innovative idea/product. Please understand I was by no means saying the people flogging $200 plastic cameras invented spontaneous creative film photography. No, what they invented was the idea you needed to spend $300+ to do what $20, a DSLR lens you already own, and a little imagination could accomplish with a used Canon/Nikon body off of ebay. And when you point this fact out to people you get called a "snob." Figure that one out.
flawed has nothing to do with editing one's collection, it has to do with imperfection.
and realizing there is no such thing as perfection or a silver bullet.
there are too many people seeking silver bullets, just read apug and other places
where people ask for perfect film and developer combinations, perfect lenses
perfect ways to mimic ansel adams or karsh's work &C .
personally, i don't "get" f64 aesthetic or grand landscape west coast ideals.
clinical, razor sharp "perfect" images to me are a bore, a weird abstract perversion of reality
the HDR of analog ...
i would rather see something that may have "flaws"
(shallow DOF, poor color rendition, flare, scratches, &c ) any day of the week ...
As to the whole 'environment' thing, developing film isn't really all that great for it, either, especially in large amounts. So...that entire point is moot.
I'm not really going to say poo to *anyone* who makes new film cameras. I mean, you could actually say the same about the new Fuji folder and the new Voigtlander rangefinders: they cause people to buy new cameras instead of the older ones that are just as good.
Stephanie my main developer is Rodinal and I do a lot of stand developing. The MOST developer I use for developing a roll of film is 4mL. I use a tap water stop bath. I reuse my fixer. I am currently researching local places I can dump of my fixer for silver recovery. I wash my film based on progressively lengthening soaking times not continuous flow. I do my final rinse in distilled water and I only use a few drops of photo flo. I have no recollection of the last time I even bought photo flo. It's probably been a couple of years since I bought new Rodinal. I don't mix up gallons of developer, stop bath, and fixer. There are very common sense ways you can minimize your impact on the environment and still enjoy this hobby. And frankly my routine is very economical. It's not just some tree hugger fantasy.
I am not familiar with the new Fuji folder and the Voigtlander rangefinders. I haven't seen them at Urban Outfitters nor have I seen them written up as having any kind of major impact on the film market. I am not sure about the quality of the Fuji folder and the Voigtlander. There is something to be said for purchasing new. A brand new shutter, warranty and available parts are nice. My problem with lomography.com is the products are far inferior to what is available in the used market and the prices are far in excess. I mean if you already own a digital setup you can buy canon bodies on eprey and if they eventually break just buy a new one. I just struggle to make sense of this situation. It is marketing genius, but surely you can't say it is much more than that. Are there some seasoned photographers that make a conscious informed decision to experiment? Sure. But that isn't the bulk of their clientele. You can't honestly tell me that the average person when in possession of all the unvarnished facts would choose to buy a Lomography.com camera. That and the wastefulness are the main drivers of my concern. Why not have an honest conversation? When you criticize this marketing campaign why do people say you only like Leica and you are a "snob?" It's very strange. I can complain about the weather and no one says a peep. I say a disparaging word about the marketers at lomography.com and I get called very name in the book. Why?
I would not characterize suggesting someone save some money by buying a Canon Elan 7ne and a brand new Canon nifty fifty as "seeking silver bullets." In any other field of endeavor outside of "art" that would be considered a prudent economical move.
Mmmm... yeah but you know about "f64 aesthetic or grand landscape west cost ideals." That's my point. You made an informed decision. My first job out of college was primarily concerned with moving product in order to improve the corporate balance sheet. I left that field entirely and went to graduate school. I am now primarily concerned with doing the best thing for the counter party... even if they aren't too thrilled about it. But I can be honest with people and let them make informed decisions. If they get ALL the objective information and still decide on a course of action I personally wouldn't choose myself that's fine. But in my experience when you show someone a $200 Lomo camera and then show them a sub $100 Canon Elan 7ne and a $100 nifty fity 10 times out of 10 they go for the Canon package. It's not even a contest. If some artist says I'm putting my Hasselblad on the shelf for awhile and doing some experimental stuff with a Lomo camera I say, cool, knock yourself out, make sure to show me the results when you are done.
I'm sure if you were to put together a portfolio of your favorite shots I would find it enjoyable. But you have to realize just because it is spontaneous and creative there is a lot of knowledge and thought behind it. I know if you take a picture with a Lomography camera and there is some cool effect you will probably be able to decipher why it happened and reproduce it at some later point when you think it is appropriate. You will probably be able to also suppress it when you don't think it adds to the picture. And I'm sure there are tons of Lomography.com effects you can replicate for a lot less than $300.
I don't know. You seem to assume that these people are stupid.
A lot of them develop their own film because labs are few and far between who cross process.
The reason that you're getting flack is that you seem to be mixing up the corporate entity that supplies film and such with the actual photography movement which is just a bunch of people having fun taking photographs.
The majority of the people doing lomography aren't buying the cameras new from Lomography. You can get most of the lower end cameras on Ebay from the countries in which they're manufactured readily and all you have to do is search for the camera you want to see that.
However, I'm not going to tell someone how to spend their money.
You are confusing the words stupid and ignorant. Just because someone is ignorant about something doesn't mean they are stupid. At some point all of us were ignorant about photography. Multiple very knowledgeable people guided me in my journey till the point where I could go out and get information on my own. I did not learn about photography from a skewed marketing campaign seeking to sell me overpriced plastic cameras. My causal conversations with a cross section of society tells me most people consider film to be low fi. Go on Hulu and watch the SNL from this Saturday 11/17/12 (about 52 minutes in with commercials on my DVR). Watch the Weekend Update segment. At one point you will hear what the general public's assessment of film is. After you hear that come back and tell me whether you think the general public is stupid or merely just ignorant about this particular topic.
Sam's club cross processes my 35mm slide film for $1.50 while I shop for 50 packs of Charmin. If I need to do regular C-41 processing of my 220 Portra Walmart does it for $0.84. Now I might be a "snob" that buys cheap Canons on ebay and shops at Walmart but I truly feel their everyday low prices are available to most Americans. Anyway one time when the Sam's machine was down I had to pony up something like $5 and get the cross processing down at Walgreens. That stung a bit but not enough for me to open a C-41 minilab in my domicile.
Actually it is the exact opposite. I criticized the Lomography.com marketing strategy and the thread was flooded with people claiming I am obsessed with Leica and I am a "snob." I think it is obvious to even the casual observer I have several very objective and rational criticisms of the lomography.com marketing strategy and poster after poster has thrown up multiple straw men instead of discussing the very real fact that if you objective is to capture quality images in a care free spontaneous manner there are numerous far cheaper tools widely available. This really has been an "Emporer has no clothes" moment.
Doesn't matter. There are cheap Canons that get the job done better and easier. Can we not just agree on that? This isn't about art or a philosophy. This is about objective facts. I just don't understand why when you look at facts through the prism of so called "art" they all of a sudden turn into opinion.
I routinely tell people not to spend their money on cigarettes. I hope in your eyes that doesn't make me a bad person.
yawn ...
the same tired arguments that film user user to crap on digital users...
know the history behind photography bla bla bla
i had a lubitel years ago ( someone gave it to me in 97? )
seeing you are hellbent to disregard anything but "perfection"
and don't let your equipment be a distraction ...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?