|
gregor
|
 |
« on: December 01, 2009, 05:43:34 PM » |
|
I bought into the L" word - lomography.
I once owned a lomography camera. It's lifespan was short. I used it for a job for institutional photo placement back in 2007..... fortunately I was the photographer and art director. Some crazy thought told me the client would like this type of shot.
One of the lomography quad cams, I have no recollection of the camera's exact name (supersampler??). Laziness prevents me from looking it up.
Had fun stumbling upon this one when looking through archives.
[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 01, 2009, 07:06:23 PM by gregor »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
moominsean
|
|
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2009, 07:34:45 PM » |
|
I had a Lomography Fisheye a few years back, but I ended up ripping it apart. I also has an LC-A+ but I didn't like it at all. I also have a Diana+ (haven't used it since I bought it...though I should) and a couple of the Diana+ Instax backs.
I did buy my Holga because of Lomography, and I have the official lomo kit, but I bought it from ebay. I have a couple shots in the Holga book...
I've never been rabidly anti-Lomo like many. I think the company serves a purpose and promotes film. But the stuff they make is crap and generally low quality, and mostly can be bought cheaper elsewhere.
[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"A world without Polaroid is a terrible place."
- John Waters
|
|
|
|
Nigel
|
|
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2009, 01:57:04 AM » |
|
Gregor - what ever you think about Lomo and their cameras that's a great image.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
hookstrapped
|
|
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2009, 07:33:47 AM » |
|
Gregor - what ever you think about Lomo and their cameras that's a great image.
Agreed. Doing it right. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
gregor
|
|
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2009, 08:41:35 AM » |
|
What do I think about Lomography cameras? I don't have enough firsthand experience to really base an opinion on them with the exception of the above quad cam, and a diana + that's unusable for my aesthetic (until I coated the lens with nail polish).
I used a non-lomography, lomo Lc-a - a russian model that a local here picked up from a russian (then soviet) sailor at a shanghai outdoor market. It was a quirky and odd camera. good for lowlight shots but no lasting impression from it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Francois
|
|
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2009, 08:55:49 AM » |
|
I don't have direct experience with Lomo either... My actionsampler came courtesy of a rummage sale who got it from an Avon lady who got it as a promotion from the company... it even came in a nice Avon cardboard box  Very "photographic"  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Francois
|
|
|
artdog
35mm
Posts: 9
|
|
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2009, 10:21:35 AM » |
|
I pay virtually no attention to Lomography. I agree with moominsean that they at least promote film.
I have a pre-Lomography, actual Soviet LC-A and have enjoyed it's quirkiness over the years. I like it's sharp, fast, wide lens. However it doesn't get into the camera rotation much at all the past few years.
I bought a Lomography fisheye used, very cheap and it is just crap. I've shot a couple of rolls through it and it's buried in the back of the camera cabinet. I'll probably rip the lens off sometime for an inspired hack. I much prefer the Vivi UW&S with fourcornersdark.com ['s] fisheye lens.
Steven
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
ed.wenn
Global Moderator
Self-Coat
Posts: 1,992
Needs 10 extra hours in the day.
|
 |
« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2009, 04:02:06 AM » |
|
Gregor, did you do this on purpose; raise the Ghost of Lomography from its secret chamber buried deep in the FW forum? I used to own a Supersampler a few years ago and used it and a few on the non-branded Action Sampler style cameras as a prelude to picking up an LC-A and subsequently a Holga (both from the kind people at the Lomographic Society for Overpriced Cameras). I loved the Supersampler and took some great shots around the South West of the USA with it it on our honeymoon until inevitably it broke on about the tenth roll. The LS website used to have an app that could animate your Action and Super Sampler photos if you uploaded them. Pretty cool stuff 7 years ago.  I just went and hunted down my old Lomography photo gallery (and yes, props to them for keeping it online for six years after I last dropped in) and found I'd uploaded a whole lot of various 'sampler' photos: http://www.lomography.com/homes/ed-wenn/albums/australian-samplers None of them is as cool as the shot Gregor opened this thread with, but I do kind of like the one above as an example in trying to turn a Supersampler into a camera with a wide-angle lens I notice also that the Lomo site still has the text next to my photos saying either "Animate me!" or "Rotate to the right and then animate.", but that there's no link behind the text, so I'm assuming it's a dead feature for now or that something got lost when they moved their content from their old site to their new one. And to end with, here's a slightly more off-the-wall snap of the Twelve Apostles taken on a drive along the Great Ocean Road in Australia back in the days when my roaming circle was slightly larger than it is these days   |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 03, 2009, 04:19:23 AM by ed.wenn »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sapata
|
|
« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2009, 03:02:10 PM » |
|
I was looking for this...
Taken with my LCA in a Cafe - Iceland 2007
Film is Fujichrome Sensia 100
[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cwilk
|
|
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2009, 10:17:01 AM » |
|
I used an action sampler for this one. I agree that Lomo stuff is too expensive and the results are very variable. Sometime great and sometimes a waste of film.
[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 10:21:27 AM by cwilk »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sapata
|
|
« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2009, 03:42:16 PM » |
|
I used an action sampler for this one. I agree that Lomo stuff is too expensive and the results are very variable. Sometime great and sometimes a waste of film.
But don't we get the same with "proper" cameras ? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Francois
|
|
« Reply #12 on: December 06, 2009, 04:34:30 PM » |
|
I agree that Lomo stuff is too expensive
I admit it, I let my willpower slip today... I went to the big city and came back with a Diana Mini which was overpriced but oh so cute... I have now busted my budget for the rest of the year Hopefully I can make it up by putting 48 pictures on a roll... that should last me quite some time... [Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.] |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 09:07:57 AM by Francois »
|
Logged
|
Francois
|
|
|
|
original_ann
|
|
« Reply #13 on: December 06, 2009, 05:58:37 PM » |
|
sapata, that's gorgeous!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Skorj
Global Moderator
Self-Coat
Posts: 1,295
the black cat
|
|
« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2009, 02:41:08 AM » |
|
97% of people do admit it, and the other 3% are lying...
As for me, I've never had a Lomo. Really! Skj.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cwilk
|
|
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2009, 12:32:47 PM » |
|
I used an action sampler for this one. I agree that Lomo stuff is too expensive and the results are very variable. Sometime great and sometimes a waste of film.
But don't we get the same with "proper" cameras ? Yes, but I don't mind wasting film so much when its in focus! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
leon taylor
|
|
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2009, 12:42:12 PM » |
|
I've never owned a lomo either
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
rolo
Peel Apart
Posts: 119
A natural, zesty enterprise.
|
|
« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2009, 05:57:24 PM » |
|
I have TWO LC-A cameras, one from LSI one from some Russian on eBay. I love 'em. This thread has reminded me that I haven't put film through them in too long.
The entire Lomography too-hip-to-live "aesthetic" (and the hideously crappy photos they post on their site) rubs me wrong, but as proponents of film, I consider them among the good guys. And the "I'm too cool for Lomography" vibe in many quarters strikes me as simply an evil twin.
And as far as running film through Lomo cameras being a "waste," what's the name of this group?
[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 06:00:17 PM by rolo »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
gregor
|
|
« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2009, 09:08:34 PM » |
|
Every time I drive past a Walmart I see a sign in neon letters that says: "Film Processing." Walmart must be a proponent of film I'm deducing. I'd like to see a 7 part youtube self promo by Walmart, running roll after roll from the most excellent of toy cameras: the Fuji disposable, flash of which you can buy from their website. They do not have, however, a personalized Walmart homepage for you to post & share your disposable camera shots.
I guess my point being, Lomography, Walmart - not a lot of difference really. They're just businesses. Do Lomography cameras really help people redefine their approach to photography. Well, many say so. I think Lomography has a good marketing angle that just says it's OK to be spontaneous and shoot with a sense of reckless abandon (with their cameras of course) - fire away and be happy. That's more or less the ignition of creativity. However, Lomography doesn't need to tell me that, I already know it. To be honest I think anyone one of us could do amazing things with the disposables - especially that cute little Kodak b&w....
Hmmm. whose up for a experiment, and dare I say challenge: we all get one disposable camera each. Shoot it, have it developed at a supermarket or other such store and post a scan of the fave print off the roll processed at supermarket lab (no neg scans) in a new thread.
Any takers?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 10:00:29 PM by gregor »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sapata
|
|
« Reply #20 on: December 08, 2009, 05:06:54 AM » |
|
I used an action sampler for this one. I agree that Lomo stuff is too expensive and the results are very variable. Sometime great and sometimes a waste of film.
But don't we get the same with "proper" cameras ? Yes, but I don't mind wasting film so much when its in focus! Sorry Cwilk didn't mean to offend...what I was saying is that from a roll of film, you won't get 36 perfect pictures no matter if the're in or out of focus... the results are variable as well, just different effects. What we use to achieve (could be a shoe box with a pinhole or a Leica ) in my opinion doesn't matter as long as you get what you want. I love your actionsampler shot and even if you had to "waste" film to produce this picture it was worthy because is unique, maybe you woulnd't get this using a "real" camera  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
gregor
|
|
« Reply #21 on: December 08, 2009, 07:15:59 AM » |
|
thanks Leon - didn't se that collab before. Some nice work in that group of shots !
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Francois
|
|
« Reply #22 on: December 08, 2009, 08:48:24 AM » |
|
Lomography has settled itself as a "lifestyle" brand, a bit like Diesel Jeans. Though they don't produce much (they're not branched into perfumes, trousers and shoes as of yet), their aim is to make profit through viral marketing and social networking. When I look at their operations in other countries, it is quite clear that the human aspect comes first, photography is just an excuse. Just for the way they seem to be bringing people physically together in some regions has me giving them at least one thumb up. They're the only company I know of who manages to bring people together in such a way...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Francois
|
|
|
|
