Topic: is lomo really that bad?

[Thom Stone]

ok going to start what could potentially spark quite a heated debate. i realise from listening to the audio podcasts that our beloved filmwaster admins are not too kean on the old lo-fi craze that seems to swell up every few years. as a fellow film waster im struggling to see how this style is an issue, surely anything that uses lots of film in weird and wacky ways is fantastic. YES the 10 rules and some of the people who participate are incredibly pretentious and the lomography store online is a massive rip off, however I'm quite partial to using some of the cameras favoured by our hipster friends.

in my collection I have a lomo fish eye (which i did not purchase off the website, hell it was given to me for free by a friend as i wanted to try my hand at some skate photography without the investment of an expensive lens). I also have a Vivitar UWS which i love as a pocket cam, the vignette is an effect ive always loved and this camera is great for it, and the classic plastic lens flare is fantastic. I also own a Lomo LC-A (the brit Zenith) which i bought off ebay for £30 and had fixed by legend Roger Lean for £40 (altho I was pretty upset to find out the week i sent it to him lomography.com were having a sale and you could get a lomo lc-a and an instant back for £75 incredibly reasonable compared to usual cost of both items.) in the last 8 months i have gone from buying my first DSLR (which i use all the time), then i got into some lomo stuff (altho would never claim to be a 'lomographer') the lomo stuff has pointed me back in the direction of some of my old slr cameras (via mijonju and filmwasters) and urged me to buy more. my first slr was a praktica MTL5 which i never really knew how to use but after learning on my DSLR (a fantastic tool to teach people about the intricacies of SLRs) I now know how to use a fully manual slr like that as my latest and most loved purchase was a Yashica TL-Super which i now use allll the time.

yashica + first home dev :-P (i know i started a thread about this but im using it to illustrate my jump in ability in the last 8 months:
 http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomo_lomo/sets/72157624439299605/


ok guys you are guna have to ignore my flickr name, started this flickr for my film stuff when i was just getting into lomo.

anyway back to the original point, I think lomo (or lo-fi photography as i prefer to call it) is a great fun way to get people into film, it taught me about different types of film of which i had no previous understanding, i have learnt about cross processing, red scalling, sprocket hole photography, vignetting (named my band The Vignettes :-P), plastic lenses, rating film at different ASAs, multiple exposures and many other fun techniques i previously had no idea about. I have now taken the step into developing my own film and will hopefully be doing my own prints before long. I would never have got to this point, if it were not for lo-fi, or atleast it would have taken me a hell of a lot longer.

infact surely lomographers and lo-fi photographers are the biggest film wasters of all?

would we have as much interest in the revival of polaroid and the impossible project without lo-fi'ers? (or lady ga ga for that matter)

So in my opinion aslong as we stay away from lomography.com and buy elsewhere, what is the issue?

[Phil Bebbington]

I don't think you'll find that anyone here is anti lo-fi photography - it is more about how the Lomographic Society go about their business.

[Thom Stone]

i was hoping that was the case, perhaps the lack of specificity a few audio podcasts ago when the discussion fell on lomo suggested to me that there is a distinct distain for it. if not then i apologise for my accusations, i too cant stand the way the lomography society go about business, however as soon as anything becomes 'cool' the prices are inevitabley going to rise. the same thing happend with converse shoes, 'Vintage' clothing, polaroid cameras, 'vintage' cameras in general. Time was you could go down your local town high street and pop into the charity shops and find all number of wonderful plaid shirts, old t-shirts, amazing old cameras anything! now it is being snapped up by craze causers who just want to make a quick buck off the young and fashionable.

[david b]

...the lack of specificity a few audio podcasts ago when the discussion fell on lomo suggested to me that there is a distinct distain for it.

I think people may object to the term being used as a way to describe a type of photography.  Lo-fi / toy camera photography existed before the LS - they just invented the term Lomography so that it would become something they could market.  And they've done so very effectively and, occassionally, ruthlessly.

[Thom Stone]

aha i see, yeah im not too kean on calling it lomography after i found out its been around for ages, hence why i said i prefer the term lo-fi. this is all enlightening stuff, I was a little worried that i had found yet another forum/group of people that have a bit of the old snobbery about lo-fi. sincerely glad to here i was gravley mistaken :-)

so used to some of my photography friends taking the piss because i use plastic cameras, (despite the fact they have just a 2 year college course under their belts) arrogance anoys the hell out of me

[Terry]

Interesting that Lomo resonates differently with different people.  I first encountered the name in connection with their motion picture lenses, which are often superb.  As an optical house, they produced glass to rival Zeiss.

[Photo_Utopia]

I had a Lomo Cosmic Symbol and a Lubitel 166 over 30 years ago, both were around £10 and pretty good for plastic cameras although they were soon replaced by a Rollei and Canon AE1.
I"m not a fan of the toy camera aesthetic for my subjects, I like others work with it and it can lend an extra dimension to certain subjects.

Cheap plastic cameras can be found for 50p at boot sales not sure why you'd want to pay premium for them, how much is my Lubitel 166 now?

If it helps sell a few rolls of film its a good thing IMHO

[Ed Wenn]

Hiya, the 5 of us who 'run' Filmwasters all actually met online several years ago when we used to frequent the forum at toycamera.com. We still all use lo-fi/toy cameras and actively encourage others to do so. Toycameras rule.

Where we part company with some toy/lo-fi photographers (and one of the reasons we started Filmwasters) is that we don't agree that using toycameras should be an excuse for not thinking about what you're shooting....and this is where we very much part company with the dreaded Lomo Lot and their "Don't think, shoot." motto.


(Edited to correct typo)

[Francois]

I think anyone would be hard pressed to find someone who hates lo-fi photography around here.

There's what I now tend to call "Ludography" (an invented word of mine which comes from the latin Ludus, which means play).

And then there's the International Lomographic Society (or Lomography).

Lomography is lifestyle marketing. Ludography is simply having fun with photography.
It can be confusing since most cameras sold by Lomo society are quite fun toys. But my concept leaves behind the marketing hype.

[LT]

Hiya, the 5 of us who 'run' Filmwasters all actually met online several years ago when we used to frequent the forum at toycamera.com. We still all use lo-fi/toy cameras and actively encourage others to do so. Toycameras rule.

Where we part company with some toy/lo-fi photographers (and one of the reasons we started Filmwasters) is that we don't agree that using toycameras should be an excuse for not thinking about what you're shooting....and this is where we very much part company with the dreaded Lomo Lot and they're "Don't think, shoot." motto.

what he said

[Alan]

I have been shooting cameras on and off for 15 to 20 years and just 2 years
ago I decided to try LO-FI photography . . . I absolutely love it!!!!!!

Of the few film cameras I own I use mostly either a Mamiya 645 or a Holga 120
and for m style I think the Holga suits best.

I just love the look.

[Thom Stone]

Hiya, the 5 of us who 'run' Filmwasters all actually met online several years ago when we used to frequent the forum at toycamera.com. We still all use lo-fi/toy cameras and actively encourage others to do so. Toycameras rule.

Where we part company with some toy/lo-fi photographers (and one of the reasons we started Filmwasters) is that we don't agree that using toycameras should be an excuse for not thinking about what you're shooting....and this is where we very much part company with the dreaded Lomo Lot and they're "Don't think, shoot." motto.

aha im beginning to understand now, I agree with all you've said here, good stuff. I too cant stand the "don't think, shoot" motto,

[Ken B: eyes, I just do eyes.]

I think anyone would be hard pressed to find someone who hates lo-fi photography around here.

I hate the damn things to the point where if I see one I want to smash it. I just want to grab the user and say "you're wrong, its not creative, its just stupid" then I want to get their vintage clothing and slash it while stomping on their over priced converse Chuck T's.




I love your new word Ludography by the way, it really is quite appealing.


I love my Zeiss Ikon

[astrobeck]

uh-oh!

I may need to change shoes!  

[Francois]

Me too... 

[moominsean]

i would never blame the cameras themselves. they actually have some pretty interesting stuff available. but the prices are generally too high and the whole "lomography movement" and shoot from the hip thing is overplayed. there is a time and place for every type of shooting, but the marketing gets old.

[jscott1]

I know of lomography, but I am not familiar with their "don't think, shoot" motto. I will be researching this...

anyway, I use pinholes and holgas as an intro to photography in my beginning photo class. I love being able to introduce photography in a fun and non-threatening way to get my students excited about "image making". By limiting their controls (no worries about F-stop, SS, etc etc at first), they can concentrate on WHAT they are shooting - more like Think, THEN Shoot.

I am all for happy accidents, but I want my students to think, understand, apply, and repeat!! I feel the lomo motto is condescending to say the least.

[Ed Wenn]

Let's put this one to bed. This isn't another "Let's bash the Lomographic Society" thread (although I'm sure one of those will come along soon enough).

I think that what happened was that Thom listened to a Filmwasters podcast and misunderstood our use of the word 'Lomographic' (as in Society) or 'Lomography' and thought we were being snooty about lo-fi photography in general. That's all. Of course we weren't moaning about cheap cameras, so it's all fine as far as I'm concerned.

Thom, FYI we are even on record on previous podcasts and forum discussions as having said that anything which helps sell film can't be all bad.

I'm actually more surprised that the original misuderstanding occurred, but then I forget that people out there - in fairly huge numbers - think of 'Lomography' as a type of photography instead of the marketing term that it actually is. But all feedback is useful and we'll make sure we qualify future mentions of Lomography on the podcast with an explanation....although this will have to start from Episode 17, because 16 is already 'in the can' and mention is made of the Lomo Soc.

[sapata]

I love my Zeiss Ikon as well... as much I love my Diana Camera

[Mil Mascaras]

They have some original camera concepts but I don't want to pay 120+ EUR for something that will become old after a couple of rolls. But if people want to pay for that, more power to them.

My three problems with them are:
- I have a background in Russian cameras and now thanks to them they are extremely overpriced unless you are in Russia. That's too bad because I'd really like to own a Horizont. They have also driven up the prices of things like the Seagull TLR's (I will have to pick up one next one that I am in HK).
- They act like the grand saviour of film but Yodobashi Camera in Shinjuku sell more film in a month than the Lomographic Society worldwide do in a year.
- Their use of the buzzword "analog" (both by marketing and by the fanboys) is very annoying.

The positives:
- I live close to the store in London and pass in front of it almost once a week. Tons of cute chicks interested in "lomography".
- Anything that gets people interested in film is good. A friend of mine went from a Diana to a Konica Hexar RF!!!

I guess that's it.

The worst thing is that Impossible Project are patterning themselves after them and it's going to suck when they are the only choice for 600 or SX-70 film because who knows what Fujifilm will end up doing with their packfilms in 2 years time.

[sapata]

The worst thing is that Impossible Project are patterning themselves after them and it's going to suck when they are the only choice for 600 or SX-70 film because who knows what Fujifilm will end up doing with their packfilms in 2 years time.

The marketing guy behind the Impossible project worked for the lomography in the early days so expect the same mentality with the impossibel project.

[Ed Wenn]

I hate the damn things to the point where if I see one I want to smash it. I just want to grab the user and say "you're wrong, its not creative, its just stupid" then I want to get their vintage clothing and slash it while stomping on their over priced converse Chuck T's.
I love your new word Ludography by the way, it really is quite appealing.
I love my Zeiss Ikon

...and you seemed like such a nice fella when we met up at Photographica this summer 

[mart]

Marketing?

Need to blow your nose? Get Kleenex.

Cut your finger? Get a Band Aid.

Want or use a toy camera? Think Lomography. And they've got plenty of people thinking just that.

Re Impossible Project: Anyone see their pitch as of today to become the holder of a Pioneer Card? Hah!

[vicky slater]

Weird, I've never had people mocking me for using any camera anywhere.
Not that I'd really care anyway.

Maybe I just don't understand the post :)

[Francois]

Weird, I've never had people mocking me for using any camera anywhere.
Not that I'd really care anyway.

Maybe I just don't understand the post

Nothing to understand here Vicky... just some old skool rants...
Now, just for fun, I'll get them all to set their shorts on fire by saying how much I love my 60$ Lomography Supersampler 

[sapata]

Now, just for fun, I'll get them all to set their shorts on fire by saying how much I love my 60$ Lomography Supersampler 

... and please make sure that you won't be thinking before you shoot! 

[Thom Stone]

Let's put this one to bed. This isn't another "Let's bash the Lomographic Society" thread (although I'm sure one of those will come along soon enough).

I think that what happened was that Thom listened to a Filmwasters podcast and misunderstood our use of the word 'Lomographic' (as in Society) or 'Lomography' and thought we were being snooty about lo-fi photography in general. That's all. Of course we weren't moaning about cheap cameras, so it's all fine as far as I'm concerned.

Thom, FYI we are even on record on previous podcasts and forum discussions as having said that anything which helps sell film can't be all bad.

I'm actually more surprised that the original misuderstanding occurred, but then I forget that people out there - in fairly huge numbers - think of 'Lomography' as a type of photography instead of the marketing term that it actually is. But all feedback is useful and we'll make sure we qualify future mentions of Lomography on the podcast with an explanation....although this will have to start from Episode 17, because 16 is already 'in the can' and mention is made of the Lomo Soc.

in a nutshell really. I have only recently discovered filmwasters (of which i am over joyed and depressed at the same time as i wish i had discovered it earlier) and have not yet found the time to listen to the back catalogue of podcasts. I really dont think an explanation in the future is necessary :-P i simply had no contextual evidence to back up my assumptions and jumped to conclusions. I think i just miss heard if im honest, I tend to be doing a lot of things at once when listening to podcasts such as scanning heaps of negatives with my very noisey epson perfection 3490 photo :-)

anyway sorry to have caused such a stir, 'twas a genuine mistake. I hope this doesnt reflect too badly on me in up coming threads and posts :-P

maybe i just have a bunch of snobby judgemental photography friends!

[sapata]

Weird, I've never had people mocking me for using any camera anywhere.
Not that I'd really care anyway.

Maybe I just don't understand the post

That's quite interesting thing you pointed, I don't think I've ever had people mocking me either... but they do stare at me.

[Francois]

anyway sorry to have caused such a stir, 'twas a genuine mistake. I hope this doesnt reflect too badly on me in up coming threads and posts :-P

maybe i just have a bunch of snobby judgemental photography friends!

That's not stirring... If you were talking about that famous spaghetti incident ( ), that would be stirring  

Now if you want to talk about camera fun, we're open anytime

[Ed Wenn]

Thread locked. Move along everyone. Nothing to see here.

 

p.s.
Thom, no worries. Glad you found us...eventually.