- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
. you sure love to pass judgement.
You obviously have afforded something better. how about showing us some of your work?
. you sure love to pass judgement.The only thing the Lomo trend proves is that aspiring "artistes" are still starving
You obviously have afforded something better. how about showing us some of your work?Maybe they just can't afford anything better.
Thanks for once again shining your beam of trollish negativity on us all. You are nothing if not a reliable drag on the conversation.Oooops ..... Seems I've stepped on some toes of real Artistes. But I'm waiting to come out of my cocoon of dismal ignorance when they finish building the Museum of Underwater Disposable Cameras.
Full disclosure - I'm giving my answer to the original question and haven't read the thread yet.
I don't think there will be another movement in the broad sense. Here is why. Every artform goes through movements until it reaches a point in its maturity where all the major developments have occurred, and there is no longer anywhere to go en-masse. Once an artform hits this wall, creative directions become much more splintered. Depending on your viewpoint this is seen in different ways. Some see it as a crisis, others see it as a new freedom. Etc.
You can point to this across all artforms. What differs greatly is the amount of time it takes for an artform to reach this point. Technology has a lot to do with that.
Does your pomposity have any limit?Oooops ..... Seems I've stepped on some toes of real Artistes. But I'm waiting to come out of my cocoon of dismal ignorance when they finish building the Museum of Underwater Disposable Cameras.
Are you the same DREW WILEY saved in the way back machine .. ?Oooops ..... Seems I've stepped on some toes of real Artistes.
hate to tell you that style camera has been around since the 1800s. its as much of a gimmick as the 8x10 you say you use but claim your images are too good to be displayed on the internet. talk about a gimmick.. LOLA gimmick is a gimmick is a gimmick
it’s too bad every post you make is condescending and passive aggressive.I don't think I could stir up as such big a hornet's nest if I had mocked a batch of Leica collectors. But I gotta give ya credit for commending the web as your preferred display option; that makes sense. I suppose I could reduce an 8x10 shot to 1/8 scale and put a tea strainer over the lens to attain web pictures worthy of the club.
I would consider lomography a "movement". It doesn't have the endorsement of serious galleries, not unexpected since it is actually a movement in reaction to "serious photography".
aren’t we in a time period where brick and mortar galleries and the gallery system is being dismantled? II would consider lomography a "movement". It doesn't have the endorsement of serious galleries, not unexpected since it is actually a movement in reaction to "serious photography".
IDK
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...tender-moments-stark-contrasts-and-a-magical-
doesn't seem like trash heaps and rusted cars. looks like people making photographic art for the sake of making photographic art. ( with a phone )
I don't think politics has anything to do with it and politics most likely doesn't have anything to do with this thread. I think people like making photographs of things they like to make photographs of, and believing and seeing they can be creative without being Michelangelo or Whistler,
There are several phases of Lomography concept.
The purest description is to simply get out a camera and take photos. If it looks good, just shoot it.
The second phase of Lomography was and is the use of outdated film, pre exposed film, film with strange color shifts metropolis for example, to make the resulting picture bizarre and unexpected. And a waste of time, and money on expensive film and processing.
The third phase is selling their cameras to people.
The last phase of Lomography is the interesting one. It seems it is about an attempt to make an image using a camera and film, that is NOT edited, and that is left as is. The use of the color shifting films is common, but they seem to be using those in an attempt to mimic the new wave music and videos.
IE the color shifting film, used with colored lipsticks, to make the final negative image different without the use of editing.
your welcome !Thanks for the link. Some great images are shown
so all that outdated film should just be wasted and thrown out even though someone wants to buy it and pay someone to process it ?
what if the people using whatever camera it is ( whether it is a Lomographic camera, or a Hasselblad or Leica or Pentax or ... ) likes shooting expired film
and has no problem with the color shifts or fog or print quality or inherent mistakes from the film? if you have used this sort of film before, whether it is color or black and white, nothing is really unexpected or bizarre its just a look and style of the film and camera. photography doesn't have to be technically perfect or 8x10 velvia exposed in an ebony that was hiked to the top of smokey mountain ridge it can be whatever the person wants. besides they are enjoying themselves and if someone is enjoying themselves and not bothering anyone how is that a waste of time?
... and get out and shoot —— that's what's kept the film industry alive for 100+ years and most recently since Perez claimed photography was dead, and dismantled and deconstructed the photographic industry as it had been known for 100 years, it was people with lomo &c cameras shooting from the hip and enjoying themselves that kept film photography possible .. people spending money on film and consumables and either processing it themselves or bringing it to a lab .. nothing wrong with if it looks good just shoot it, that is what the decisive moment is all about. shifting the color on lipstick has been a trend since the 1920s/30s when portrait photographers used orthochromatic film on purpose ( like good old tri x ortho ) and red lipstick turned black &c. nothing new.
your welcome !
I thought so too
Shooting with a camera, one wants the image on the view finder to be the image on the negative. I dont know any SERIOUS picture taker who wants to take a shot and have the final image to be mashed about with random shapes that were randomly pre exposed onto the fil.
Nothing says bad or insult more then to take a photo and have half of it be star fish shapes. Or the color shifting films based on exposure... those are tricky, when every 50 iso change from 100 to 400 will give the film completely different color performance and bias.
go to lomography website store. The metropolis film is the one that comes to mind quickest. Go dig through their inventory. Film photo project store has more stuff in the pre exposed film market.so what's wrong with someone enjoying themselves in this way? is it you don't approve or they aren't "serious" ?
I've been shooting expired film for about 20 years I have never heard of color shift like you have mentioned. can you post a link to the film
and examples of images that exemplify what it is you are talking about ? sounds fun.
btw I am kind of serious ..
For those interested there is a show hung until mid January in NYC on the subject of the Black is Beautiful movement.
Black Is Beautiful: The Photography of Kwame Brathwaite | New-York Historical Society
One of the minds behind the "Black Is Beautiful" movement, Kwame Brathwaite has long deployed his photography as an agent of social change. This exploration of his work features 40 stunning studio portraits and behind-the-scenes images of Harlem's artistic community.www.nyhistory.org
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/23/...ytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
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?