Anti-lomo/pro-lomo

[Tony Harrison]

Yes, modern consumer electronics give us convenience. Still, perhaps that's why the older things do appeal. I was tempted at one point to buy a (cheap plastic) Lomo. A friend of mine did, and he took these pictures which I really like. It's one of those 4-lens ones, and he just took it with him and 'snapped', and then got the whole lot cross-processed. He's not an artists, or even a photographer by any means, but the results were really interesting.

[Muel]

Sounds like a complete and utter load of shit to me.

Get a wank camera.

Take pictures 24/7, and hope that one of them is good.

Brilliant...

But I'll stick to the, slow the f**k down, take your time, hold the camera steady, and then every picture looks good school of thought.

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

Is that the really small, point and shoot, simple zoom one? Mid-range but very good?

I HAD ONE!

Still got it, then we got a digital Ricoh, was f**king excellent, now nearly dead.

[Tony Harrison]

The GX-100 I wouldn't exactly describe as point and shoot. I'd say it's the compact for the DSLR-user. I think that's the market it's aimed at. Hence for best results you're better-off shooting RAW. One of it's defining characteristics is it's 24-70mm (35mm equiv.) focal range, plus an optional wide-angle converter to take it down to 19mm. This is surprisingly good, and far better than the results achieved from a compact with a cheapy eBay 'fisheye' screwed on the front.

[JonMack]

Is that the really small, point and shoot, simple zoom one? Mid-range but very good?

I HAD ONE!

Still got it, then we got a digital Ricoh, was f**king excellent, now nearly dead.

No. It's their digital compact. As snappel said it's got lots of slr-type features in a compact camera.

The Sigma DP1 is very similar.

[F-Stop Junkie]

I actually started my photographic adventures with an OM-10 as well, then a Minolta Dynax 7000i, then a Canon dSLR. Having played with OM-10s again recently, I find them so fiddly to use, the body lacks a decent grip and they're just too small for my big paws. At the same time, my 10D has a certain bulk - especially with the battery grip on it - but it fits. My hands are in just the right place, with the buttons and wheels under my fingers and thumbs. I suspect it's exactly the opposite of how you feel I feel nostalgia for those cameras, but I'd never choose either over my 10D

It's interesting to use the analogies from music. When people talk about vinyl, they talk about the intrinsic properties of the disc of plastic, not the equipment used. Same with reel to reel tape recorders. When some photographers talk about a love of film, and different film types having different properties, I can understand that. Sterling Lorence still shoots on film, but he matches his 1D Mk2/n/3 with a EOS-1V hs. He appreciates film, but uses it with modern gear to get the best focus and image quality.

DSLR development has pushed down a different road, especially when you're dealing with pro and semi-pro cameras. The image you end up is a starting point, not a finished product. You have to tweak, pull, push and work on an image to get a good finished result (though how much is obviously dependent on the image you took in the first place!). This is the price of RAW, but in requiring that post-processing you also get far more flexibility than ever would have been possible with film. Not just wider lattitude, but also the ability to change contrast, saturation and white balance. This means that anybody, anywhere can produce infinitely flexible art pieces by adding elements which couldn't have been done with film.

Guitars are a different matter IMHO. Subtle changes made all the time affect tone and feel (and value!) which don't occur with mass-produced items which are overhauled from time to time. However, I suppose the RAW of the guitar world would be a Line6 guitar/effects unit which gives you that same attitude of a clean input, then pick your desired output to match. Don't forget that DxO optics can emulate many, many different film types so if you're especially attached to Velvia or Tri-X then you're not moving away from that world and trying to recreate what you once knew.

The idea of Lomo photos (especially from the multi-lens varients) being interesting is - I think - one problem with Lomography. Just like every other person in the photo thread wanting a fisheye, it's the fact it's different that catches the eye initally. Once that wears off though, you need another gimmick - say flash gels - to keep you interested, then another - like the Ringflash. Some people (by which I mean photographers) who use a Lomo understand restraint, and do use the Lomo as a proper camera, but they're in the minority I believe over those who want a trendy retro camera where you can only buy film by mail order, and then order the circular cutter for their fisheye images, and the circular photo album, and the book on Lomography...

I think the problem is that one can start idolising the past as some sort of perfect age. The problem is that for every Ferrari 250 GTO there was a Austin Allegro. Yes, vinyl has a certain sound, but it also lacks definition, wears out, warps, etc... For me, any camera set up has to offer good quality, good usability, durability

What didn't you like about the L lens construction? Knocks the spots off most lenses I've ever known... As far as build quality goes generally, I'd be interested to learn what digital SLRs and lenses you'd tried to declare them all feeling like a bag of shit.

Oh, it may be the Ricoh GR you were thinking about. Reasonably priced, but fixed lens I think at 28mm. In a similar vein, Sigma have announced the DP-1 should start shipping soon. Compact body, fixed 28mm F4 lens, dSLR sized sensor...

Matthew, I don't remember seeing you post any photos in the photo thread, why not join us there?

[Matthew62]

Thankyou for taking the time to write all of that, its very insightful and useful, so thanks.

In terms of the L lens, when i got my camera it comes with the usual kit lens which in feel and construction is beyond awful. I've tried a range of Sigma lenses which felt Ok, more solid construction but still quite plasticy. I've tried some Tokina lenses, which felt nice enough. Then recently i tried the Canon 10 22 which i liked the focal range of and was considering but was unsure of as its a EF-S mount, and i was also looking at the Canon 17-40. I fancied something with a similar focal range to the kit lens but obviouslly a better all round lens. After reading a million and one reviews for it, everyone said it was lovely, but the main thing i kept hearing was how good the build quality was, how it felt ''solid'' and so on..... so i was expecting something quite special.

So i got it on a body and i just felt a little let-down, in construction it did no feel special, sure the manual focus ring had a good resistance to it, zoom, felt nice enough, but i didn't get that 'wow' factor and after finding out that the L stood for Luxury, i didn;t think it felt all that luxurious. The focus ring as its rubbery just didn;t feel amazing. I know they're great lenses, maybe i just had unrealistic expectation...but its just my opinion. I'd still own one but i wasn't amazed.

Yeah i might get my self along to the Photography thread, could do with some more pictures.

Thanks again.

[crazy_gap girl]

Weird. just ordered my self a fisheye 2 camera, didn't even see this thred till now

[Matthew62]

Can you let me know what you think of it once it arrives. Also for the time being...what is it that made you buy/want it?

Thanks,

Matt.

[Tomm]

I've just realised I actually own a lomo, haha.

It's a 'Supersampler' according to the website: http://shop.lomography.com/supersampler/

I haven't even used a whole roll of film in it yet, even though I've had it about two years. Seems pretty pointless to me but maybe I should finish off the roll and see what comes of it.

EDIT: WTF this thing costs £38?! (Plus postage, natch). I really hope my girlfriend didn't pay that much. I've had disposables that are better quality.

[anzo]

I haven't a clue about photography, and never knew what Lomo was until about a minute ago when I opened this thread out of curiosity.

Photography is something I've never, ever been in to, and I don't see why other people are into it either. To me, a camera is used to take photos of a good night out and then laugh about the morning after...I could never use a camera in a 'serious' situation.

But hey, doesn't mean to say I don't respect people that can use one and make a really decent photo. End of the day, I do realise the difference between a shit, ok and amazing photo based on looks alone (not all the poor lighting etc etc thing)...looking through the 'ride photos' forum for example.

Lomo, looking at the websites for examples, looks pretty crappy quality to say the lease. But its obvious Lomography is being marketed as a cult type group (cant think of the word?) then anything else. Photography is a hobby/profession, lomography is a 'belonging'...something that the hippy type retards will always buy into.

The marketers of this are on a gold mine here, they know full well that people will buy into it thinking its the next big thing and its a 'cool, hip way to express yourself and be individual'. I don't think it would bother me to the point of mild annoyance, but I can see why avid photographers are getting annoyed by this.

[Mark W]

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.

I'm aware of what he did, and why he did it, and how influential it was, as I had to write 2,000 words on it last year. In my post I was more refering to the way that there were the pioneers who did it because it was what they felt was right to do, and they could justify it theoretically and contextually, but then for every individual pioneer, you get thousands of copy-cats who do the same random crap just to try and be a part of a movement, without actually having any real justification for what they're doing. I'm not saying every work of art needs to have a reason, but doing post-modernist works is as much about the theoretical and conceptual side of it as it is the practical side of it, and if you've got no conceptual basis to a piece, what's the point? It seems the same with lomography - whereas it may have originally been done for a reason, so to speak, now, people do it just because it's hip.

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.

My first experience of photography was through an old Pentax SLR, and the thing that I loved about photography when I started was developing my own films and processing them in the dark room. I'd still like to go out and shoot film, because you really do have to put your heart and soul into it, and it's more of an emotional commitment for sure (waiting to see if it's turned out right is exciting and horrible in equal measures), but speaking as someone who's working more now, having to wait to develop film isn't helpful when a client wants a photograph for an advert now, or wants to see some of the photographs you're doing on a roadtrip to see what sort of articles or features they could do on the article, or when a rider wants to see if you've got the image 'right' for them, or any number of other reasons. It's still fun to shoot film, but practically speaking, digital is streets ahead. You can still go about shooting digital like you do film, which is what I try and do. I used to just blitz off test shots like there was no tomorrow, but now I think more about the angle I want, work out how I want it lit, then just get everything set up. Usually, I can get it to look almost exactly as I want it almost straight away, but that's just because of practising and knowing my equipment reasonably well. So yeah, you can still be 'film-ish' when you're shooting digital.

Speaking about guitars, a lot of the sentimentality (word up ) of guitars and bass guitars seems to be largely 'made up', to some extent. I'm more of a bass person, and having played some vintage basses, some do feel nice, but some do just feel shitty. In the same way, some modern basses feel nice, and some feel shitty. Before I bought my latest 6-string bass, I played 3 of the same model, and they all felt slightly different. I went for the one that was right for me. However, it's different comparing a guitar to a camera, simply because everything to do with how a guitar works and feels is hugely based upon the wood used, and the grain of it, how good the luthier is and so on, whereas with a camera they're almost all mass produced items made of metal, plastic and other composite materials. There's no real comparison.

Also, every DSLR i've ever felt feels like a bag of shit compared to old cameras, the build quality differance is silly!

Hmm. Maybe. I've felt enough shitty, haggard old SLRs to kinda appreciate the feel of my 30D. Equally, the MF Hasselblads and Mamiyas we've got at uni are relatively new, and also feel amazing to use.

Sounds like a complete and utter load of shit to me.

Get a wank camera.

Take pictures 24/7, and hope that one of them is good.

Brilliant...

But I'll stick to the, slow the f**k down, take your time, hold the camera steady, and then every picture looks good school of thought.

The best way to learn is to experiment and always be shooting photos, but claiming them all to be 'interesting' and 'artistic' is where it gets a bit stupid. Using a guitar analogy (hypocrisy: noted), it's like going from playing with a shitload of reverb and distortion to playing clean. My band were playing a gig a while back, and the guitarist I play with was using a ridiculously nice Cornford Hellcat (super nice amps). The other band were using some haggard Marshall that sounded like bollocks, but they liked it 'cos of the feedback, distortion and so on. We'd played with them before, and when they played you could hardly differentiate note from note, so it kinda overall sounded pretty good (or 'interesting' ). Their Marshall broke at the gig, and they had to use my friend's Hellcat, which is a really clean, amazingly good quality amp. You can get the same distorted tone with it, but it's way easier to hear what you're playing. When they started playing on that, without the comfort zone of tone-robbing distortion from the piece of shit they usually used, you could really hear how they really were at playing the guitar. It seems to be a similar situation to lomography vs. photography - just hiding behind the equipment to cover up a potential lack of technical skills. Obviously it won't be the same in every situation, but to call it good photography is a bit of a slight on good photographers, if you get me. I'd call some of Ansel Adams' or William Eggleston's work interesting to look at, and I'm sure some of the lomography stuff can also be interesting to look at, but it's a totally different situation.

DSLR development has pushed down a different road, especially when you're dealing with pro and semi-pro cameras. The image you end up is a starting point, not a finished product. You have to tweak, pull, push and work on an image to get a good finished result (though how much is obviously dependent on the image you took in the first place!). This is the price of RAW, but in requiring that post-processing you also get far more flexibility than ever would have been possible with film. Not just wider lattitude, but also the ability to change contrast, saturation and white balance. This means that anybody, anywhere can produce infinitely flexible art pieces by adding elements which couldn't have been done with film.

I'd agree with that. It is, in fact, one of the things I hate about my degree. The emphasis is placed purely on what comes out of Photoshop, not what comes out of your memory card. I'm well aware that film photographers don't just reproduce exactly what they get on their negatives, and that they dodge, burn and so on to 'make' the image, but at the same time, it's not entirely changing the total look of an image that they've realised, post shooting, that they've totally ballsed up. I don't really resent the fact that you can do it, and I don't think it's a terrible thing, but it just seems that in a learning sense, the emphasis isn't on camera ability any more. The way that a lot of 'new' big name photographers are publishing their actions for PS CS3 online now instead of their work kind of says it all.

Guitars are a different matter IMHO. Subtle changes made all the time affect tone and feel (and value!) which don't occur with mass-produced items which are overhauled from time to time. However, I suppose the RAW of the guitar world would be a Line6 guitar/effects unit which gives you that same attitude of a clean input, then pick your desired output to match.

Similarly to the way that digital will never really have that film look, the Line6 guitar doesn't have the same sound, tone and feel of what it's trying to emulate. Because it is emulating something, it can never be it, or be ahead of it, if you see what I mean.

The idea of Lomo photos (especially from the multi-lens varients) being interesting is - I think - one problem with Lomography. Just like every other person in the photo thread wanting a fisheye, it's the fact it's different that catches the eye initally. Once that wears off though, you need another gimmick - say flash gels - to keep you interested, then another - like the Ringflash. Some people (by which I mean photographers) who use a Lomo understand restraint, and do use the Lomo as a proper camera, but they're in the minority I believe over those who want a trendy retro camera where you can only buy film by mail order, and then order the circular cutter for their fisheye images, and the circular photo album, and the book on Lomography...

So am I gonna buy a ring-flash next week then? I think using the RPT here's a bit of a different kettle of fish to most photography forums 'n' stuff, just 'cos fisheyes are really useful for the sort of action photography a lot of people on here do. Equally, for other artistic uses they're pretty handy. I've used mine for quite a few photography projects, and I find it's useful to be able to 'see' in a fisheye way as opposed to just 'seeing' in the usual 17-50 lens way or whatever. By that, I mean that when I go out shooting I don't just see things as they are through my eyes, and then try and recreate that, but I can imagine what it'd be like through my 10-17, how I could tweak the angles, how that part of the subject would look in a certain part of the distortion on the lens, and so on. When I have to go out shooting with people from my uni (none of them have any other glass apart from the kit lens their dSLRs come with), it's interesting seeing how they look at stuff, just by looking at something then pointing a camera at it.

On the second highlighted point, I guess it's comparable to the trendy kids all going out and buying fixies now. Before, only messengers and the more "dedicated" cycling enthusiasts would go out on a fixie, but now they're fashionable, people are going out and buying them with no idea what they're getting, just that they want to get something that fits into the fashion clique and helps them make their lifestyle more fashionable. Seems to be exactly the same as lomography.

What didn't you like about the L lens construction? Knocks the spots off most lenses I've ever known... As far as build quality goes generally, I'd be interested to learn what digital SLRs and lenses you'd tried to declare them all feeling like a bag of shit.

True. Also, to be honest, my 17-50's focus ring doesn't feel buttery smooth, but at the same time I know I can get decent results out of it. If the glass itself is good, and it works, I don't really understand the need to be fully anal about stuff like that. Just go with it, I guess.

So i got it on a body and i just felt a little let-down, in construction it did no feel special, sure the manual focus ring had a good resistance to it, zoom, felt nice enough, but i didn't get that 'wow' factor and after finding out that the L stood for Luxury, i didn;t think it felt all that luxurious. The focus ring as its rubbery just didn;t feel amazing. I know they're great lenses, maybe i just had unrealistic expectation...but its just my opinion. I'd still own one but i wasn't amazed.

Just to make a mention on that high-lighted point - as someone with a 'rubbery' focus ring and someone who also has a thinner, metal focus ring (more old school-ish than new school type lenses), when you're shooting photos with cold hands, 'rubbery' focus rings are a god-send. So much easier to use!

[Tony Harrison]

Mark deserves a nap after knocking that lot out!

[Mark W]

Photography is something I've never, ever been in to, and I don't see why other people are into it either.

The reason people are into it is simply an extension of the reason you use photography. You use it to capture memories of a good night out, it's just that your good night out happens in a club instead of my good night out which happens at a street spot, skatepark, or wherever. In a non-documentary sense, and a more artistic one, it can be a way that people get across their point of view, or just to satisfy a creative urge. In that sense it's the same as the reason people do trials - it's something irrational that you enjoy doing, and I've dealt with many, many people who couldn't understand why I'd do it, or did do it. Some people are just naturally more creative and artistic, and it's their way of getting it out of their system. For me, getting that photo that I had in my head done for real is a great feeling. Seeing someone's face and reaction when they're as happy with the photo you took as you are is pretty cool.

[Matthew62]

Thankyou very much for that reply - pretty mammoth, but very useful.

Yeah i guess its true about the rubbery focus ring, i got a lens recently for my old SLR and it was so cold when i got it that when i touched it, it completely fogged up, it was like that for ages....so of course there are some real advances with modern day stuff, and yeah i realise that with an L lens, predominantly you are paying for the glass itself, which is why i said i would have no problem ownging one, i was just a bit suprised the first time holding one.

Thanks again.

[anzo]

The reason people are into...

Fair play. Although I should have worded the quote better that you took, I didn't mean it like 'photography is wank, I don't see why other people are into it'. I just don't see/understand the creative side of it.

[Mark W]

Yeah, I assumed you didn't mean "cameras are ghey" or anything, hence tailoring my reply more to the 'This is why I'll be going out and freezing my arse off to get some photos for Hidden magazine in 2 hours' type of thing

[Tomm]

Mark, your post = rubbish.

But does it mark the return of the OBM essay?

[Mark W]

Nah, marks the return of the 'Mark's Bored' scenario.

What d'you disagree with?

[Tomm]

All of it. It would probably have been a waste of my time reading it. So I didn't

[Mark W]

Ah

[crazy_gap girl]

Can you let me know what you think of it once it arrives. Also for the time being...what is it that made you buy/want it?

Thanks,

Matt.

Yeah sure, i will post some photos up in the photography thread once i get them developed.

Iv done black and white 35mm film developing at college, always had a keen intrest for it, but i saw a rage of lomo cameras in shop in leeds corn exchange ages ago, didnt know what they was then till i recently visited bradford uni and thought id have a look round the photography museum and spotted them in a corner. I like the way they take photos, very simple and also slide film intreegs me. Although id have to get colour film done at a shop, black and white i can do my self. Also one setting on the fisheye 2 camera you can take more than one photo after another on one negative, so you really can be creative with it. You could go mad. The supersampler looks really fun.

[Jake]

In my humble opinion, Lomography is a gimmick and something I see as a way of 'cheating' something into looking visually appealing. The whole x-processed thing with light leak, I dunno, to me it's too easy. If I can tell it's an effect that has produced an image to look a certain way, I end up generally disliking it because I find it hard to get past the thing thats drawn me in is nothing more than a filter, and does nothing to enhance the meaning of the picture.

[Matthew62]

Anymore opinions guys? They will be gratefully received!!! All good so far. Don't be shy!

[crazy_gap girl]

In my humble opinion, Lomography is a gimmick and something I see as a way of 'cheating' something into looking visually appealing. The whole x-processed thing with light leak, I dunno, to me it's too easy. If I can tell it's an effect that has produced an image to look a certain way, I end up generally disliking it because I find it hard to get past the thing thats drawn me in is nothing more than a filter, and does nothing to enhance the meaning of the picture.

It's snap shot photography, its not ment to have a meaning!.

I think its moto or something's, 'Dont think...Just shoot'

[Matthew62]

Yeah but unfortunatly according to the Lomographic Society it does have a meaning, it has a whole philosophy, and a lot of the time it is that which is causing all of the arguments....