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