What Does "Lomo" Mean?

[Ken Nadvornick]

It was indeed a '72...

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

 

[StoneNYC]

I read the first page but haven't read the other 2, question, where does the lomo 120 come from? They sell some B&W and some color but no details about where it comes from.

Anyone know what company? If you put B&W lomo film in a Hassleblad would you get fine grain crisp images?

Thanks for anyone who knows. They sell it at hipster stores like urban outfitters but often that store is easier to find than a photo store that sells 120 so in a pinch, could you use it?


~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]

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:


~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]

Yeah, those little Lomo LC-A cameras are terrible...


LCABug by Takumar, on Flickr

The Minitar-1 1:2.8 32mm lens is superb.

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.

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:

What century was that? We were discussing 2012. With that logic Kodak should have shut down R&D in the 40's.

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 ...

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.

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 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?

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?

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.

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.

Who cares if they're overpriced, dark-boxes with coke-bottle lenses?

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.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

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? I'm not going sit around pissed off because someone spent $100 on a camera I could have gotten for $20. I don't care.

Also, for the record. Lomography didn't start out being a company. It was just an idea, and a way of seeing things. In fact, most of the original cameras come up on Ebay still, so it isn't like people can't get them cheaper if they wanted to.

 

[Chris Lange]

I suppose when I wrote my post I should have stated I was referring to lomography (little L) versus Lomography (big L).

 

[Noble]

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?

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

Also, for the record. Lomography didn't start out being a company. It was just an idea, and a way of seeing things.

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.

 

[kevs]

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?

Because public perception drives the market.

 

[cmacd123]

It is too bad that the "lomography" folks have kinda besmirched the name of the LOMO factory in St Petersburg. The Original factory made a wide range of cameras in the former Soviet union, many of them in what we would call the "popular price" range. A SMELMA used to be available for 20 bucks and it is a great little manual plastic 35mm Point and shoot. http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Smena_8M_(2) .

Camera Pedia also have the history of the factory, and it makes clear that Cameras were only a sideline... http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/LOMO

Do it yourself Movie makers will also be familar with the LOMO developing tanks that can take up to 50 feet of 16 or 35mm Film. https://sites.google.com/site/olexserviceskinor/film-processing/processing-tanks

The Lomography folks did start our with the LOMO copy of the MINOX 35, which does scope high on the cuteness scale but they now build their versions in China or elesewhere.

NOW for the LOMOGRAPHY FILM.

My sense of adventure has resulted in buying a few rolls and attempting to figure out the source. Some is of Chinese manuafcture, some from Foma, and at least the 35mm Lady Grey I bought was definatly a Kodak Product. (although with edge printing that just says B&W 400 ) Yes they do sell their film as a much higher price than the main stream suppliers. and yes they do emphasise the sort of defects that make many or us Cringe. BUT they do raise awareness in the mind of the public that film is alive and well, and is perhaps more interesting than a quick grap from a cell Phone camera.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

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?

Uncalled for and does not advance your argument...

Ken

 

[removed account4]

So the advice everyone gives to edit your collection is wrong?

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 ... its more to do with
what the japanese call wabi sabi

if you don't like it ... oh well, your loss, just as it is my loss that
i can't stand clinical razor sharp "perfect" images.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

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.

No, you misunderstood. What I'm trying to tell you is that the company "Lomography" capitalized on the concept of lomography. Some of the people said, "Hey, we might be able to make some money off this!" and tried.

EDIT: TO make this perfectly clear, lomography as an art form was around before Lomography the company was.

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.

The thing is: they're not keeping anyone from buying used cameras. It all started out with people buying cheap cameras on Ebay and learning that, hey, this is pretty cool. In fact, used cameras are becoming more and more popular, and not to mention prices are going up on some of the best ones, including the Nikon and Canon bodies.

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.

 

[Noble]

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 .

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.

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 ...

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.

 

[Noble]

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.

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'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.

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?

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I don't know. You seem to assume that these people are stupid. On the contrary, I assure you that they aren't. A lot of them develop their own film because labs are few and far between who cross process. Also, when buying from the site they're assured a camera that works as opposed to the utter crapshoot that most of the older Russian cameras are on Ebay.

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, there are some that are exclusive (the Debonair for one, and the improved-upon Holga and LC-A). However, I'm not going to tell someone how to spend their money.

 

[cepwin]

Lomography is it's own style ... But I agree people are doing creative work and more importantly having fun With it.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

LOMO is the producer of biggest single piece telescope mirror in the world and producer of best movie camera lenses in the world. If you want to buy an LOMO Square Front Anamorphic 22mm lens , it starts from 25000 dollars and climbs.
LOMO is the maker of most advanced satellite lenses in the world also.

My friend is an light engineer in germany and conducting 100000 people concerts is not rare for him. I am looking his facebook page , all the artist people from germany is spooky and feel me in danger. They are wild , untamed , anarchists.
They have their fathers money and unlimited hunger for power. I dont like young people of today. They are in class struggle war games too much. Money is the only valuable thing , they laugh to our seriousness and struggle. 100 dollar is their 8x10 camera.

 

[JBrunner]

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 can't for the life of me figure out why in the hell anyone would shoot tiny crappy little inch square negatives and soup it in the grainiest developer on the planet. For not much more you could be pounding out razor sharp 8x10 contact prints with no apparent grain, and unreal tonality, like I do. I guess you are a victim of marketing.

 

[Dali]

I don't use Diana or other cameras of a similar quality but I don't understand why this rage against Lomography. Did they kill someone? Is it mandatory to use Lomography now so some people get easily upset? Is there somewhere a bible every photographer should follow and telling him (or her) what to do and what not to do? Is the world not big enough to acccept multiple ways to practice a hobby?

 

[mooseontheloose]

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.

 

[removed account4]

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.

yawn ...
the same tired arguments that film user user to crap on digital users
but now you now crap on LOMO or low-fi users or people that don't do what
you think is best .... use a better camera for less money, get a better image
know the history behind photography bla bla bla

sorry to disappoint you but i don't have a LOMO camera, i do have a handful cameras from smal to large, and ultra large format...
i couldn't really care less about much of the stuff you suggest is so important
and i don't really think you would like many of the things i do if i was to give you a portfolio of my images to look at.
so while i don't use a LOMO i can understand what they are upto and think it is great ... and wish there was more of it.

enjoy what you are doing, and do what you enjoy,
and don't let your equipment be a distraction ... its just a camera ...

 

[Noble]

I don't know. You seem to assume that these people are stupid.

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.

A lot of them develop their own film because labs are few and far between who cross process.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

However, I'm not going to tell someone how to spend their money.

I routinely tell people not to spend their money on cigarettes. I hope in your eyes that doesn't make me a bad person.

 

[JBrunner]

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.

Pointing out that 35mm and rodinal is lo fi to me isn't a straw man. You shoot tiny little fuzzy negatives that have to be enlarged. I'm sure you aren't stupid, just ignorant.

It's just a reminder that you are nothing but a point of view. You have an opinion, as do we all. Getting ones panties all bunched up over what other people do is flat out useless, because you aren't them. You might think you are noble, but to me you come off arrogant. That isn't meant as an insult, take it as an observation. There are ways of advancing ones opinion without lecturing others. I don't agree with a lot of what you advance, simply because if I apply reductio ad absurdem I could look down my nose at almost everyone here, and that would frankly be ridiculous. You do realize that you are disparaging people you don't know, and generalizing a very diverse group? That's a big red flag to me, but that's just like, my opinion.

 

[DSLR]

Any time you say the words "LOMO" or "Digital", you'll get a thread like this.

It's kind of funny, I sort of dismissed lomography as a hipster fad, but after visiting their site and seeing their cameras I actually want to try a Holga or one of their stereo cameras .

 

[Noble]

yawn ...
the same tired arguments that film user user to crap on digital users...

I shoot digital and I haven't "crapped" on my self since I was about one and a half.

know the history behind photography bla bla bla

Quote for us where I said "know the history behind photography."

i had a lubitel years ago ( someone gave it to me in 97? )

Nice. Shows your level of interest. I BOUGHT a Lubitel with my own money years before I posted anything about one. It wasn't just some second hand cast off. I bought it AFTER I already owned a series of DSLRS, 35mm camers, L lenses, medium format SLR, camera phones, etc. I didn't buy it from Lomography.com. I bought it off a Russian.

seeing you are hellbent to disregard anything but "perfection"

We live in strange times if spending <$100 for a used Canon body on ebay and buying a <$100 nifty fifty signifies you are "hellbent to disregard anything but 'perfection.'" I find it amusing that this thread started of with people claiming I was obsessed with Leica and Hasselblad and devolved into people calling someone with a cheap used Canon and a nifty fifty an OBSESSED perfectionist. Who is the intolerant extremist?

and don't let your equipment be a distraction ...

Well it is a little distracting when the first time you screw in the tripod screw it destroys the brittle plastic on the bottom of the camera. It is distracting when you took out the tripod in the first place because anything less than extremely stopped down is unacceptably blurry. It is distracting when you have to spend a painstaking amount of time counting the turns of a knob necessary to advance each frame because you have to cover up the frame counter when doing IR (number of turns varies as you progress through the roll). It is distracting when you have to rack your brain to remember whether you advanced the film or not because the camera has no indicator to remind you. The number of f'ing blank frames and double exposures was very annoying.


With the Elan 7NE you just pull out the leader so it covers the length of the back of the camera. Then you lay it down and shut the back. You turn on the power and the camera automatically loads the film, reads the DX coding and sets the ISO. Put the little dial on full auto. Now just LOOK at what you want to be in focus and the camera automatically selects that focus point. Half depress the shutter and the focus and exposure are locked in. Fully depress and the memory is captured. Repeat. Now tell me. Do you feel that is more or less distracting and spontaneous? How is this an argument?

I can see an argument for the particular qualities of a specific plastic lens. I can kind of see an argument for particular light leaks. Although a $20 Canon off of ebay can be made to leak for a fraction of the cost of a number lomography.com cameras.