Anti-lomo/pro-lomo

[Matthew62]

For all those Photography minded who have a knowledge/interest in Lomo/Lomography then here's the place to voice your opinions!

I am currently writing my Dissertation about Lomography looking at them being pioneer's of fun/abstract photography producing innovative cameras, promoting all aspects of photography versus them being a heavily targetted marketing company aimed at a very specific type of person producing poor quality cameras.

What ever your opinion is on the matter, it is of particular interest to me and would help my work immensly. Whether you love or hate them, please let me know what you think and why you think it, no opinion is wrong as it is yours and your entitled to feel the way you do!

If possible i would greatly appreciate if this did not turn in to an argument about Lomo, i'm looking for YOUR personal opinion for ME. Please don't argue amongst yourself as everyone has a right to feel the way they do, and these cross opinions will be of no use to me. One mans junk is another man's treasure............

So don't hold back, any thoughts or opinions you have lets here them i really am interested. All quotes used will be referenced in my dissertation so you will be credited for your opinion.

Thankyou very much for your time!

[Billy]

Are you talking specifically about the little fun Lomo cameras with 4 lenses, fisheye, underwater etc., or the LCA/Holga/Panoramica cameras, and their use in street photography?

I know I have fun when I use them. The whole aura surrounding Lomography, the website/message boards definitely feels like a closely guarded clique. They definitely have a powerful marketing team.

I'm guessing professional photographers would be quite snobby about them, being as they're made of plastic, plastic lenses, colourful etc. But I don't see any reason why you can't take good photographs with them, even if they're not gonna make you an infinite amount of cash. They're a lot of fun to play around with, which is what they were made for at the end of the day. But I think you're right about the heavily marketed, perhaps even elitist target audience?

I found an interesting article written by a pro about why he hates Lomography and everything about it, I'll have a look for you, but you've probably already read it. I'd love to read your dissertation when you've finishsed

EDIT - found it - http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/lomography/

I also found an article from the BBC about Lomography - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7007160.stm

Hope they're of use.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Billy

[Matthew62]

I talked to John Freeman a week or two ago in London and he's pretty much against them for the reasons you said, i can't recall this article you mentioned, and if you can find it/a link to it i would be eternally grateful.

And yes i'm looking at Lomo designed cameras and re-issued cameras such as the Holga/Diana etc...

Thankyou very much for your opinion/comments.

Matt.

Those links...... a thousand thankyou's!!!

Edited January 29, 2008 by Matthew62

[Billy]

Found it ^^^

[F-Stop Junkie]

I have no strong feelings on this subject...

[Tomm]

I have no problem with it, except that the lomo cameras can be VERY expensive for what they are. If they were cheap and allowed people to get into photography, I'd be all for it. They take better pictures than camera phones anyway

[Dr. Nick Riviera]

I have no strong feelings on this subject...

liez.

but when someone provokes chris into giving a proper answer, he's pretty close to the mark.

[Matthew62]

Well if people have opinions as i have said i would gladly listen as i'm very interested and they would be of huge use. But i'm not going to beat it out of people, if you don't want to say anything then don't but if you have an opinion please share, now's not the time for being coy! I'm nto here to play game's, this is serious for me!

[F-Stop Junkie]

Before I start, and believe me this'll get me started, I'm not including the very very cheap Lomos in this. The multiple lensed or fisheye ones. I'm referring to the black plastic Holgas and the like. The others are just toys.

Don't forget, this whole Lomography bunkump started with a couple of students buying cheap cameras and doing marketing on them. They even come with black tape for when they start leaking light or fall apart!

You do realise that Lomos are a cruel marketing trick played on smelly art students, and smelly art graduates, to make them believe they're making art when they're actually just taking rubbish photos?

Due to the lack of lens sensitivity, most shots require a long exposure and as a result lots of pictures come out blurred.

Lomo PhotographyDoesn’t sound great, but a few clever marketing type people managed to sell the bad photos as high art, and part of a movement to document the world! A great cause if ever there was one. Lomography follows 10 rules:

1. Take your camera everywhere you go.

2. Use it anytime, day and night. (So far it’s take as many pictures as you can)

3. Lomography does not interfere with your life, but is a part of it.

4. Try the shot from the hip. (Don’t hold it upto your eye, wave it about and get some odd angles)

5. Approach the objects of your “Lomographic desire” as close as possible. (The closer you get, the more fisheye it gets, plus the camera doesn’t have a zoom…)

6. Don’t think.

7. Be fast.

8. You don’t have to know beforehand what you captured on film. (Take random pics, and you may be surprised)

9. Afterwards, either.

10. Don’t worry about any rules.

It’s an interesting concept, and I’ve tried it myself using the small digital cameras and it’s a pretty fun thing to do. Having a certain camera is crap, it’s about taking pictures. The only difference with digital cameras is people care less about the camera, and everything is in focus. However, as far as the marketing goes, I’ve rewritten the rules a little with my cynical head on.

1. Take pictures.

2. Take more pictures.

3. Photography is part of your life, so take yet more pictures

4. Wave the camera around. You get more camera shake, but you get weird angles and compositions.

5. Fill the frame, so get close.

6. Take pictures randomly.

7. Take as many pictures as quickly as possible.

8. Don’t think about what you want out of the picture, just take pictures.

9. Don’t worry about the results either, they’re likely to be crap, cross your fingers and hope for a good one.

10. Come up with slogans that encourage picture taking and sales of cameras, while sounding kind of rebelleous and allow oppressed artists to feel as though they’re beating the system.

The bottom line is that if you take lots of pictures, you will occasionally get a good one. The more you take, the more likely you are to get a good one. Better still, if you get bright colours and swirly patterns then even better. Put those in the hands of arty types, and you’ll get some interesting results.

Still all marketing hogwash though. There are some photographers who use Holgas (or modified Holga lenses on other mounts) but they're a distraction, not the main focus of their work.

Buy a Ricoh Capilio GX100, you'll get better shots, not waste film and have a good camera.

[Matthew62]

You do realise that Lomos are a cruel marketing trick played on smelly art students, and smelly art graduates, to make them believe they're making art when they're actually just taking rubbish photos?

Thankyou for taking the time to write that, its ideal, just the sort of stuff i'm after. however i'm asking for your opinion, not to have mine made up for me. In my dissertation i am putting forward my argument, referencing other peoples thoughts and opinions to give it relevance and insight, so thankyou for the rest of the text.

It was an intelligent reply on the most part, but saying Lomo is aimed at ''Smelly art students'' brings it down in my estimation as it comes across a little immature, as your other reaons for why you dislike them have meaning and experience behind them....so in all thankyou very much!! Very useful.

Cheers,

Matt.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Matthew62

[Tomm]

But you know what he's on about though. There is a specific kind of person who will buy a lomo camera because they think they're being brilliantly arty. I would have gone with "pretentious wankers", but "smelly art students" seems nicer.

[F-Stop Junkie]

I would have gone with "pretentious wankers", but "smelly art students" seems nicer.

And funnier.

I'm all for different forums of expression and the like, and I hoped you (and everyone reading) would find it funny rather than immature.

Ultimately any camera is a light proof box with a lens. Nothing more. To try and elevate a shonky Russian camera to the level of art is simply possible because people look at the effect and not the image.

Of you can take a good image with a Lomo, like you can with any camera, but a bit of retro-chic because you have to use film, flash gels and ring flash doesn't make a good photographer, it makes a gimmick.

Who really wants a camera with 8 different lenses? Who'd buy an iPod which could play 8 tunes at once through 8 different headphones?

Lomos are a toy, a distraction, something for people who coo at the effects and don't think of composition and the like, and proudly display the bad photos as abstract art, not overexposed blurry messes.

Why not shoot with an SLR, or even a modified Holga lens, and add blur or boost saturation later?

Thankyou for taking the time to write that, its ideal, just the sort of stuff i'm after. however i'm asking for your opinion, not to have mine made up for me.

It was an intelligent reply on the most part, but saying Lomo is aimed at ''Smelly art students'' brings it down in my estimation as it comes across a little immature, as your other reaons for why you dislike them have meaning and experience behind them....

I'm sure you have your own, overly wordy, opinion. I'm not trying to change your pro-stance, merely offering a counterpoint. I was making a rhetorical point.

Not a normal TF word, must be a triple score.

And yes, I do have a certain amount of thought and experience behind my answers, but when you've been surrounded by this cock of the poppiest variety for so long, you're allowed to be a little immature around po-faced (not smelly) art students.

[Tomm]

http://digital-photography-school.com/blog...mo-photography/

[Pashley26]

Well, i didn't know wtf it was until 2 min's ago.

And it seems to me like the Lomo Homo's are having fun, And producing some quite funky shots

Whats the big deal against Lomo's ? Are they driving out the traditional Camera, or are you afraid of change ?

Jarrod

[craigjames]

the only person that i have ever seen own and use a lomo camera was as you described a smelly art student, or as i prefer to refer to her as, a pretentious wanker. With no eye for a shot, no skill, no idea of the techniques used with photography she took her little plastic toy and proceeded to take what only she tought were 'good' photos.

it takes the skill out of taking a good photo and puts everything down to pot luck and poor equipment.

[Matthew62]

Some interesting comments coming, thanks guys. Also i must clarify i'm not looking for personal abuse, of course i have ''a wordy opinion'' i have to write 10,000 words on the subject so lets hope so!

Peoples opinions why they love or hate Lomo are great and are very useful.

In case it is of any interest, i shoot a 1970's SLR, Canon DSLR with loads of extra junk like various lenses, flash's etc..... and i also own a few Lomo cameras so i have a very balanced opinion of the whole subject. I see why people dislike Lomo, i see why people love it, i am not 100% for one, there are both valid arguments here....to clarify i'm not a smelly art student. I do enjoy making art (i don't mean taking Lomo shots even though Photography is part of the ''arts'') but i also like taking a well composed, thought out photograph but i don't like to get overly bogged down in the DSLR world which seems full of penis envy, so Lomo can keep you sain some of the time...but as i said this is not about my opinion it was just to clarify so no one questions me as this is not what its about.

All great stuff, keep it coming and thanks again!

Matt.

[F-Stop Junkie]

Some interesting comments coming, thanks guys. Also i must clarify i'm not looking for personal abuse, of course i have ''a wordy opinion'' i have to write 10,000 words on the subject so lets hope so!

In case it is of any interest, i shoot a 1970's SLR, Canon DSLR with loads of extra junk like various lenses, flash's etc..... and i also own a few Lomo cameras so i have a very balanced opinion of the whole subject. i don't like to get overly bogged down in the DSLR world which seems full of penis envy, so Lomo can keep you sain some of the time...but as i said this is not about my opinion it was just to clarify so no one questions me as this is not what its about.

Ok, seeing as the opinions have dried up, can I ask, why are you so enamoured of film? Why shoot on old kit?

I'm not asking to be nasty or to belittle your choice, just out of curiosity. I've considered getting an old OM-10 or similar to go with my dSLR, but I really can't see the point. If I want to go full manual, I can. I get modern light metering, and I get a far greater range of processing options.

I can also appreciate the desire to de-bulk your kit, but again, why go with film? When I've had my compact on me, I'm thankful for the range of ISOs and all the other enhancements modern technology has given me.

I've tried justifying going back, but I really can't. Especially when you take film costs, processing, printing and scanning into account. I bet getting 120 film done is easy...

Also it wasn't intended as a personal insult, just a bit of fun amongst photogs.

[Mark W]

are you afraid of change ?

How is using out-dated, shit cameras 'change'? It's just people who lack technical ability using poor quality equipment as the reason for their art, not the actual subject itself. I'd rather see someone who used better equipment actually make the subject of the image the reason it's an artistic expression, rather than the means.

It'd be like someone snapping a paint-brush in half, then painting with the jagged end, for the sole reason that they were painting with non-standard equipment.

[Token]

"A mere tenth of a second makes the difference between lomography or not lomography. Just don't waste any time with settings, adjustments, thinking about it, faffing around and procrastinating. First impressions have a quality all of their own, trust yourself"

Now to me, someone who doesn't have the first clue about photography, it says: "all you people that are crap at photography, join us to take crap pictures, we can look cool because we don't know how to use settings, an we'll all pretend that the photos we take are revolutionary."

So they'll waste alot of film, but they'll feel more of an individual for it because they're stuck in the past. They're just wannabe individual non-conformists.

[Krisboats]

I've seen and played with a lomo owned by the aforementioned "smelly art student" (ironically not the cleanliest of people so actually quite smelly) and i couldn't see the fascination with it. Sure it makes unusual pictures that could be classed as art, but with no skill being used and no real idea to the outcome of the picture it isn't really art, its seeing art in something thats been created at random. Its not like putting down a canvas and painting a picture, even if you don't know what your going to paint, as you can sculpt while your working. As far as i'm concerned its closer to blindfolding yourself and walking for a while then painting on something and claiming you meant for it to turn out that way and stating that it has meaning and resemblence.

Needless to say i wasn't impressed and would much prefer to look at unusual photos that have been taken through understanding of using manual settings and lighting effects. A lot of the fisheye over saturated stuff is done better on a decent camera anyway so i don't see the point really.

[Mark W]

Some might argue that it was post-modernist art, simply because if an 'artist' declares something to be 'art', it is. In the same way that *f**k, forgotten him name* placed a urinal in an art gallery and called it a work of art, some people might argue that lomography is a way of giving photography back to the so-called amateurs, and that the ideas shine through.

However, they would be talking bollocks.

[Tony Harrison]

Buy a Ricoh Capilio GX100, you'll get better shots, not waste film and have a good camera.

That's exactly what I did. It'll fit in my pocket, and is good for those 'Lomo type' opportunities. To be honest, I'm not going to mess about with film for the sake of 'art' when the photos won't be any better.

So, I like the whole idea, but I don't see the need to buy an actual Lomo film camera.

[Matthew62]

Some might argue that it was post-modernist art, simply because if an 'artist' declares something to be 'art', it is. In the same way that *f**k, forgotten him name* placed a urinal in an art gallery and called it a work of art, some people might argue that lomography is a way of giving photography back to the so-called amateurs, and that the ideas shine through.

However, they would be talking bollocks.

It was Marcelle Duchampe, he was challenging the conventions of art, and was one of the pioneers of this. I wouldn't compare Lomography to what he did. To you you may think whats so great about turning a urinal on its side, but he was the first guy so say ''why not''? If its done after it has no effect, but you have to imagine at the time it would have been radical and completely blown the art world apart. Just like when you listent o a Jimi hendrix song these days, theres loads of guitarists that can play like that 'now' but when Purple Haze first came out it was so raw and in your face people just couldn't comprehend it.

Unfortunately we do not live in a time where this happens so readily, we are all about continuing past conventions and not moving on.

In answer to why i shoot an old SLR aswell.....

I do actually own a OM-10 and i love it. Theres no denying i use my DSLR much more, but for me the experience shooting with both isn;t comparable. Sure you are just taking a picture and they are both just cameras but to me they feel a world apart. The only thing i can personally liken it to is wih guitars. I have a buunch of guitars made from around this time (2000 onwards) some are re-issues of classic years such as 1962 and some are just straight modern guitars. But i have a genuine 1964 Fender and theres just something when you have it in your hands, sure my modern guitar is more reliable, cleaner, more predictable but that doesn't make me love it.

I know i can relly on my Canon, i know what it is capable of and how much of a help it can be, but it does not feel at all special compared ton when i use my Olympus, its a nerve racking experience when i use it, nothing to help you or to fall bakc on you just have to trust your judgement. Also, every DSLR i've ever felt feels like a bag of shit compared to old cameras, the build quality differance is silly! but in all, its just comething i love to have and even better is that ive got a serviced OM-10 with 4 various lenses, flash gun, tele-converters and extension tubes for under £100 all in immaculate condition...also the pictures that come out of it to me are beautiful, but i wouldn't expect everyone to feel like that.

I started photography on old 70's SLR's so when i got in to it i thought i'd own my own partly to recapture that initial buzz of a new hobby, so everytime i use it it feels special. Thats the only way i can describe it.

[Tony Harrison]

Like vinyl...

Yes, I see your point. I have a complete OM-1 set-up, and it's appealing in ways that my DSLR isn't.

[Matthew62]

Exactly, and wouldn't you know it i like to own vinyl, maybe i come across as the typical Lomo intended target audience as i very much like and am interested in art, however i'm not an art student and usually pretty clean.

For me theres item from era's like the 60's and 70's that are so beautiful and nothing has come along for me that rivals it on the same level - maybe i'm stuck in the past. I know when i record music i prefer to record on reel to reel or tape, but sometimes for convenience sakes i record digitally, just like i eventually gave into a DSLR as theres aspects of it that are undiniably helpful, but for me it could never be something that i would love and cherish.

Just like i was intending to buy my first L lens and i went to try it out, and you hear lots of ocmments on build quality and stuff.....when i got it on the camera i was dissapointed, sure it may help to take beautiful shots, but i didn't think much to construction.

But i think if possible and your that way inclined, its nice to have the best of both worlds, they're both great for very different reasons.