What Does "Lomo" Mean?

[Chris Lange]

Before we get even more huffy puffy over this whole issue, we should bear in mind that the demons over at the Lomographic society also put word out about this little bastard:


There's more details over at the BJP, and while it is indeed a Lomographic society camera, and they don't have the greatest track record, this is the sort of camera development that gets my bits jiggling. Who was the last manufacturer to put out a multiformat 120 camera with interchangeable lenses for less than $1000...

Info here: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2219240/lomography-releases-bellows-film-camera

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Well it is a little distracting when...

Here, let me help.

If you don't like those cameras, don't buy or use one.

There. Problem solved. For both you and the rest of us.

You're welcome...

Ken

 

[Noble]

Pointing out that 35mm and rodinal is lo fi to me isn't a straw man.

I said the average person. I did not say JBrunner. The average person doesn't know what 35mm is and they have most certainly never heard of Rodinal. Also my post said FILM not "35mm film." I know you had to change that to make your point but you can't just alter the facts to suit whatever argument you are making at the moment. If you quote me do it accurately, please. I was going to answer the rest of your post but you mischaracterized so much of what I said and even added in some stuff I didn't say that I didn't think it would be fruitful. If you said 8x10 is high fi relative to 35mm I would say yes. That is not an opinion. It is a fact. The fact I shoot 35mm on occasion and have never shot 8x10 doesn't change that fact. And it doesn't make it a personal insult that you stated the fact. I am not going to go on for 6 pages in the thread about opinion, and art, and spontaneity, and live and let live, and why do you care. I will agree with the FACT you stated and that's the end of it. You have quite nicely illustrated the point that I have thus far failed to get across to some people. Not everything is an opinion. And what you personally shoot doesn't change the FACTS. Thank you.

 

[StoneNYC]

Okay that's one vote for not caring about the environment. Anyone else?......

Noble, so do you get this mad at Leica or Hassleblad owners? They are just as bad as Lomo folks, they spend way more money on their cameras than they rightfully should, when they can get the same quality out of a Mamiya at a fraction of the price? (Not trying to start a war about this issue it's a point don't detract from it). A Leica made in 1940(or whenever) is not going to have as good a glass as even some 80's canon lenses and an AE-1 but instead of spending $100 they spend $2,000+

Are you mad at them?

And another thing remember that if no one is buying cameras the perception of the business is that no one is buying film, so film will stop being made, at least this is a way to keep film alive a little longer...

I also would never buy a cheap plastic "Diana" when I can play with my Kodak no 1 Autographic and get the same effects (since I haven't fixed the bellows yet). But someone needs to buy, we know where to go to get a goo camera, they don't, and urban outfitters isn't selling used Kodak folders...

Because public perception drives the market.

Exactly...

And thanks for the answer to the film question, maybe I'll pick some up for fun...(lomo film).

And yes Kodak SHOULD have stopped making CAMERAS in the 1940's as someone said... But film of course they should have continued


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JBrunner]

I said the average person. I did not say JBrunner. The average person doesn't know what 35mm is and they have most certainly never heard of Rodinal. Also my post said FILM not "35mm film." I know you had to change that to make your point but you can't just alter the facts to suit whatever argument you are making at the moment. If you quote me do it accurately, please. I was going to answer the rest of your post but you mischaracterized so much of what I said and even added in some stuff I didn't say that I didn't think it would be fruitful. If you said 8x10 is high fi relative to 35mm I would say yes. That is not an opinion. It is a fact. The fact I shoot 35mm on occasion and have never shot 8x10 doesn't change that fact. And it doesn't make it a personal insult that you stated the fact. I am not going to go on for 6 pages in the thread about opinion, and art, and spontaneity, and live and let live, and why do you care. I will agree with the FACT you stated and that's the end of it. You have quite nicely illustrated the point that I have thus far failed to get across to some people. Not everything is an opinion. And what you personally shoot doesn't change the FACTS. Thank you.

It's difficult to accurately quote paragraph upon paragraph of ranting. We're here to discuss what Lomo means, not disparage it. You seem to think that your point can be made with sheer volume. The fact is few here are buying it. The other fact is that it is totally off the topic. You can rant on for another twenty paragraphs, or perhaps you can figure out that the thread isn't called "Why I hate Lomo and hit the road if you don't."

Most people could take the hint.

 

[StoneNYC]

It's difficult to accurately quote paragraph upon paragraph of ranting. We're here to discuss what Lomo means, not disparage it. You seem to think that your point can be made with sheer volume. The fact is few here are buying it. The other fact is that it is totally off the topic. You can rant on for another twenty paragraphs, or perhaps you can figure out that the thread isn't called"why I hate Lomo and hit the road if you dont"

Most people could take the hint.

Ok I'll stop arguing with him too, if we all stop responding maybe he won't rant so much (sorry noble, but it is getting a little monotonous... ) You're welcome to contribute to other posts of course, we welcome all film shooters here).

So we have learned that LOMO is a way of thinking about photography per what Stephanie said. And that lomography is the thought process and Lomography is the company.

And that all film processing is probably in some way bad for the environment.

Hmm did I miss anything? Questions answered, nothing more to see here...


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Noble]

Noble, so do you get this mad at Leica or Hassleblad owners?

For the billionth time my beef is with the lomography.com marketing department not the people that buy the cameras. As I stated if someone makes an INFORMED DECISION to buy the camera I don't have problem with it. Why are people selectively reading my posts?

A Leica made in 1940(or whenever) is not going to have as good a glass as even some 80's canon lenses and an AE-1 but instead of spending $100 they spend $2,000+

You're preaching to the choir bro. I would NEVER spend $2,000+ on a camera. I bought a whole Rollei Integral kit with multiple lenses and tons of accessories that was mint for substantially less than $2,000. But like I said if someone makes an informed decision to make that purchase I have no problem with it. Frankly I'm sorry to disappoint you but I just don't think about it at all because plopping down $2,000 for a single camera is about as likely as me dropping $250,000 on a Ferarri. Never say never but exceedingly unlikely. And Leica and Hasselblad are luxury goods retailers. They have no desire to cheapen their brand by having their wares in dusty boxes stacked up in a corner in Urban Outfitters. This whole thread I and other posters have been primarily concerned about the erroneous impression the lomography.com products make on the general public. The general public has never even heard of Leica and Hasselblad. Why would I care about an nonexistent effect?

 

[DSLR]

Before we get even more huffy puffy over this whole issue, we should bear in mind that the demons over at the Lomographic society also put word out about this little bastard:
View attachment 60345

Alright, I have to admit, I'm pretty intrigued.

 

[Andy K]

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.

That's a straight scan from the print. And here is the same neg which was blown up to 16x20 and set into a collage in 1996.

Call me a liar again or pull your neck in, dickwad. Actually, you know what, forget it. Why am I arguing with a know-nothing gearhead?

 

[Ian Grant]

Some years ago (late 1980's0 I bought a Lomo for my sister, it was a reasonable camera capable of quite reasonable/highly quality results.

Since then the name has become a term loosely describing some types of lower end camera and unfortunately they are being marketed at higher prices than they deserve, as are the rebranded films.

The upside is they have stimulated a demand and if you go to flea markets and camera fairs you see many film cameras being bought by young people, and they are after the lower end cameras as well as better models.

Ian

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Wow I just took the time and read through this. It's pretty intriguing to see how strongly people feel about Lomo and Lomography.

I guess to answer the original topic question, lomo is just a style, akin to something like what pictorialism in photography once was (a separation from standard photographic styles). Soft focus, heavy vignettes, pop-arty. Nothing wrong with it, just another art form and way of expression.

Lomography or Lomography.com the company is just trying to capitalize on it. I doubt that the original lomo society could have imagined where this would take off too. Their core beliefs were to take and use inexpensive cameras which were passed by by many photographers because of imaging flaws and embrace them. I feel many people dislike Lomography because of how the company prices and targets 1st time analog users. Their marketing and price gouging is what I think makes people dislike them and be very vocal about it.

I've shot holga it's fine, but it certainly isn't the camera I started out with. I would have been quite frustrated if it was. I've used the lca and it's a wonderful little camera, but to buy one new is $200-300 bucks! The new lca-w and the folding 6x12 I think are good steps forward for them, and cameras I myself would really like to use, but again really super expensive. There is a huge mark up going on here, as all of their cameras are plastic molded and made by cheap labor over seas. The amount they produce surely gives them a cost advantage through economies of scale. If the prices were lower, i feel there would be much less negativity.

"well it gets people into film" I guess but maybe it does the opposite just as well. High prices on gear that isn't as well finished or as durable, and expensive expired film(If you peel the labeling of most of the time you can see its like just old Kodak or fuji stuff, redscale is just rerolled flipping the emulsion side), may give consumers buyers remorse and have them shy away from film altogether after their first and only purchase. Others may move on to other cameras and systems, but I think very few make a full commitment to analog if they didn't have a more formal education in it. It's a fad for many.

The original lomo crowd wanted people to use inexpensive cameras to make art, but now its a huge reversal of that core ideology to buy expensive cameras to duplicate that style.

I have read on other sites about lomo shooters getting creative about their processing, it's cool in one way, but I think really scary and potentially very expensive. Many shooters have been intentionally altering their films after shooting by tossing them into random household chemicals and leaving them to dry. I can't imagine what damage that would cause to the machines, chemicals, or other peoples films which were developed together.

Too bad there has not been any real market info or studies to see how large the lomo market is, or how many people enter and stay in that segment, or how many exit. Plus lomography isnt public so there isnt any company reports we can view to see how they are doing. We can only guess based on what we see. I've actually have been observing more traditional cameras than Lomography products on the streets recently though. Sites like tokyocamera style and it's similar spinoffs serves as some documentation of what's in the hands of analog shooters around the world.

 

[railwayman3]

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.

That's reminded me of my Dad in the 1960's experimenting with his Exakta, extension bellows and various old magnifying glasses
and bits of lenses taped to the front. Some really interesting and different results. He would have been delighted and amused to think that he was an early lomographer!

 

[StoneNYC]

Railway man and Chris, that sounds fun I'm trying it!

Railway man, you weren't at Dwayne's in 2010 were you?


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Henning Serger]

I agree with Stephanie. I think a lot of people who shoot with these cheap cameras/lenses (including myself) are not 'lomographers' in the sense of the big "L" lomography movement, they are just people who like to have fun or explore what can be done with cameras outside the norm. I like my Holgas but I can guarantee that I would never pay the prices that places like Lomography and other retailers demand.

That being said...I think the appeal of Lomography is that is provides people, who may not know a lot about film, or be intimidated by film cameras that are outside of their realm of familiarity (I certainly was before I got my first medium format camera). Sure, the cameras and the films are expensive (we know that), but they provide an easy, friendly access to those who are looking for something different but are not sure where to start. I'm certain that if those people keep up with it and do their research, they'll learn quickly enough that they can use cheaper, non-Lomo films to do what they want, and that there are other cameras and processes that they might try.

The thing that bothers me about lomography (big or small L) is that it promotes the idea that film is unpredictable, goofy, out-of-focus, that cameras leak light, etc... and that that's all film can be about. Most recent articles about film always seem to have a tie to the lomography movement, which I find unfortunate. There's so much more to film than cheap cameras (not that there's anything wrong with them, I like them), film can (and does) produce stunning work, it can be very reliable and predictable and beautiful, but no one is promoting that fact. We at APUG of course know that, but we are insiders to this little club, and getting that message out there without being critical or condescending is important.

+1, well said.

Lomography UK on BBC World News:
http://www.lomography.com/magazine/news/2012/11/27/spotted-lomography-on-bbc-world-news

Whether you like what the Lomographic Society International (LSI) is doing, or not. Fact is no other company has done so much for public awareness of film in the last years as the LSI.
Have you ever seen someone from Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Foma, Freestyle etc. promoting film use on international TV?
The LSI is taking more efforts in marketing for film use than Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Foma, Freestyle etc. together. Sad, but true.
Of course they alone can not save film. As long as the others stay passive concerning marketing for film, the market situation remains difficult.

If you had been in the last years at the biggest worldwide photo fair, the Photokina in Cologne, you would have seen the excellent representation done at the LSI booths. Boothes often bigger than lots of the digital companies, and with very good and innovative ideas to present the products and to get lots of attention from visitors.

Those who criticise the higher prizes of their products should at least think about the following:
What is the LSI doing with the profits? Are they buying golden Rolls-Royce for their staff? No....
They are investing the earnings in
- the worldwide marketing
- in the construction of their worldwide Gallery and Embassy Stores; real, not virtual shops you can walk in, tests the cameras, and where you can join courses
- the design and production of new camera models like the Spinner, Sprocket Rocket, LomoKino, new 110 cams, Bel-Air etc.

All the above investments are very expensive. You don't get that for free. You simply have to sell your products at higher margins to be able to do such a worldwide growth strategy.
These customers that pay the higher prices enable LSI to do so. They therefore support the global marketing and film consumption.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[removed account4]

noble

you seem to have missed the point.
and i am really not going to go on arguing with you
to explain to you what it is.
arguing for the sake of arguing doesn't do it for me.
i have better things to expend my energy on ..

no one is holding a weapon to your head insisting you
purchase one of these cameras ... you don't want one, don't buy one.



good luck !

 

[Toffle]

That's reminded me of my Dad in the 1960's experimenting with his Exakta, extension bellows and various old magnifying glasses
and bits of lenses taped to the front. Some really interesting and different results. He would have been delighted and amused to think that he was an early lomographer!

Oohh... am I a lomographer?? 5x7 paper neg with a $0.99 magnifying glass lens.

[/IMG]

BTW, welcome to APUG, Noble. Here you will find many talented and knowledgeable photographers who are an invaluable resource in questions spanning the gamut of the analog experience. This is also a tight-knit community with a strong sense of "got your back"; personal attacks are frowned upon and disparaging remarks earn few friends. I hope your stay here is enjoyable.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Henning those are great points actually that I had failed to think about when posting earlier. R+D is quite expensive, and to have physical stores and staff is a cost as well. I dunno, maybe Lomography one day may take up not just creating cameras, but maybe new films, that would be great.

 

[AgX]

I really like the idea behind some of Lomography.com cameras.

But just read this at their site:

"Does the size of 110 film affect its quality?”

Generally, this doesn’t just depend on the film, but also on the camera you use, laboratory conditions and processing. Having said that, film production has evolved a lot since the launch of the original 110 Pocket films and new 110 films such as the Lomography Orca, use equally fine film materials as other larger format films. Therefore, you shouldn’t be able to notice any difference in quality at all.

What should the uninitiated reader understand from this? Am I over critical?

 

[StoneNYC]

Oohh... am I a lomographer?? 5x7 paper neg with a $0.99 magnifying glass lens.

[/IMG]

BTW, welcome to APUG, Noble. Here you will find many talented and knowledgeable photographers who are an invaluable resource in questions spanning the gamut of the analog experience. This is also a tight-knit community with a strong sense of "got your back"; personal attacks are frowned upon and disparaging remarks earn few friends. I hope your stay here is enjoyable.

Cheers,
Tom

Cool! I approve, in going to be a lomographer now too! In fact if you count my Polaroid TIP back attempts that should count too...


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

I really like the idea behind some of Lomography.com cameras.

But just read this at their site:



What should the uninitiated reader understand from this? Am I over critical?

Considering most "lomographers" won't be printing larger than 8x10 I think it's ok to say they aren't being super inaccurate... In that context...

Obviously it's not correct but for practical uses its ok.


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Lomo is Russian for gotcha.

 

[railwayman3]

Railway man and Chris, that sounds fun I'm trying it!

Railway man, you weren't at Dwayne's in 2010 were you?


~Stone

Sadly, no, never been to Dwaynes. But some of my last reels of Kodachrome might have been going through the machine when you were there!

 

[StoneNYC]

Sadly, no, never been to Dwaynes. But some of my last reels of Kodachrome might have been going through the machine when you were there!

~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brian C. Miller]

What does "LOMO" mean?

To me?

Cheap plastic camera. Lightweight. It has limitations. No worries.

I bought a Holga years back when it was something like $15. I'm still using the same Holga. Yeah, I have other cameras. I have Pen-F to Toyo 8x10. What do I like to have with me when I'm on a bicycle? The Holga.

It weighs 8oz. I don't care if it bangs against the bike as I'm riding. I don't care if it gets stolen or ruined or broken. It has one speed and one aperture, and I can live with that. I patched the light leak holes with black tape. If I run a lot of film through it, my thumb starts to get raw from the sharp edges on the winding wheel.

Why do I keep using it? The most important reason is that I never think to myself, "should I photograph that?" I just do it. I don't worry about it. I go through roll after roll after roll. And I don't care.

I don't photograph like that with my other cameras. Except maybe my Pen-F, which I haven't been using because it needs a CLA. Anyways, with my 8x10 I carry with me 6 holders, so I get 12 shots, and that's it. There's a lot more shots than that riding my bicycle. Really, there are. And it's harder to pack the 8x10. So with the 8x10 or other cameras, for some reason I get into a rationing mentality. I need to ration the shots. Sure, I have to do it with sheet film. And for some reason, I also do it with my other good cameras.

But not with the Holga.

I release cares and concerns with the Holga. They are set aside. They don't matter. I accept the results for what they are. What comes, comes. What gets on the film, is what's there. That's all. That's all that there needs to be.

 

[mfohl]

Still Lomo

What does "LOMO" mean?

To me?

Cheap plastic camera. Lightweight. It has limitations. No worries.

I bought a Holga years back when it was something like $15. I'm still using the same Holga. Yeah, I have other cameras. I have Pen-F to Toyo 8x10. What do I like to have with me when I'm on a bicycle? The Holga.

It weighs 8oz. I don't care if it bangs against the bike as I'm riding. I don't care if it gets stolen or ruined or broken. It has one speed and one aperture, and I can live with that. I patched the light leak holes with black tape. If I run a lot of film through it, my thumb starts to get raw from the sharp edges on the winding wheel.

Why do I keep using it? The most important reason is that I never think to myself, "should I photograph that?" I just do it. I don't worry about it. I go through roll after roll after roll. And I don't care.

I don't photograph like that with my other cameras. Except maybe my Pen-F, which I haven't been using because it needs a CLA. Anyways, with my 8x10 I carry with me 6 holders, so I get 12 shots, and that's it. There's a lot more shots than that riding my bicycle. Really, there are. And it's harder to pack the 8x10. So with the 8x10 or other cameras, for some reason I get into a rationing mentality. I need to ration the shots. Sure, I have to do it with sheet film. And for some reason, I also do it with my other good cameras.

But not with the Holga.

I release cares and concerns with the Holga. They are set aside. They don't matter. I accept the results for what they are. What comes, comes. What gets on the film, is what's there. That's all. That's all that there needs to be.

Just out of curiosity, approximately how many of those images do you print and/or exhibit? I have exhibited some of my Holga images, and I have printed some up to 11x14. I average about 1 printable image per roll of 12. Which is only slightly less than with my Mamiya TLR.

Cheers,

-- Mark