Lomography - isn't it going too far??

Rolleistef · Jul 5, 2006

Lomography : a strange word indeed. It's known to have been invented by a couple of Lomo and low-quality photography nuts, but it appears that the whole story was made by... Lomo!!
Here's my vision :
in 1991, USSR fell. Thousands of companies were to be closed for economical reasons, now they weren't any more generous governement to raise and give funds to these companies.
one of them was the camera maker Lomo, father of the most brilliant plastic cameras ever : Lubitel, Smena, Holga.
But : the lens were ALSO plastic-made.
And they could give you some funny colors : rainbow chromatic abberation, over-present flare etc.
They then thought : why not playing with all those low quality camera, and launch a new photographic trend?

And thus, they started raising the price of their sh...ugar-made cameras, and the whole russian cameras followed.
But isn't it going a bit too far? Paying 120$ for a Holga! or a Smena!
Today I saw (grab your chair ) a 450 (x1.3 if you want it in $) Kiev 645TTL in a Lomographic shop...
Of course it's really funny taking the oddest pictures but....
What do you think of this story?

skylark · Jul 5, 2006

But getting a half decent shot out of a Lubitel is incredibly satisfying;

AND it's a great way to try medium format. However I would not pay more than £20 for such a camera !

Torus34 · Jul 5, 2006

The prices quoted are surprising, but look at what people in the US are willing to pay for a Mercedes.

terri · Jul 5, 2006

meh....anyone who researches these cameras for more than ten minutes will understand they shouldn't pay inflated prices for the toy cams.

If they do, they've fallen victim to slick marketing....won't be the first, last, or only time that happens.

I have a Lomo fisheye as well as a Holga. Between the 2, I've spent less than $50...and, my Lomo doesn't require taping. :lol:

rmh159 · Jul 5, 2006

Torus34 said:
... look at what people in the US are willing to pay for a Mercedes.

haha yeah... stupid Americans. Where can I get this $400 lomo? Jk.

Soocom1 · Jul 5, 2006

Hold yer horses there Torus.... We don't like paying $$$$ for Mercedes, thats what we get SHAFTED FOR at the dealers! (they have to pay for the screaming commercial announcers somehow).
People around the world think that the US population is somehow rich. (Tell that to my bank!)

Seriously, if some idiot will pay $573 for a Lomo, let them. But then again, people are buying $3.00 Indian made, brass compasses for over $50 through certain catalogs as well.

Torus34 · Jul 5, 2006

One man's treasure is another man's candidate for the dust bin. [Original saying.]

Rolleistef · Jul 6, 2006

well it was not for a Lomo but for a Kiev 645, which is, however, more or less the same thing.
I found it new with accessories for 380$ on ebay..
Skylark - what lubi did you use for that? Lubitel 1, 2 or 166U?

Torus34 · Jul 6, 2006

When the final print is viewed at sufficient distance to eliminate clues such as razor-sharp focus, it can be difficult to determine the quality of the camera that was used. I once accepted a challenge to prove this with a throw-away versus a high quality 35mm rig.

Come to think of it, a contest restricting the photographers to a single throw-away camera and standard 'drug store' commercial processing might be interesting.

danalec99 · Jul 6, 2006

Torus34 said:
Come to think of it, a contest restricting the photographers to a single throw-away camera and standard 'drug store' commercial processing might be interesting.

Great idea. This was kicked around a while ago.

Don Simon · Jul 6, 2006

There's nothing wrong with using cheap point 'n' shoots or disposables. I think the reason people a lot of people take issue with Lomos and Lomography is not the image quality but the marketing. LC-As on certain websites are going for more than what it costs to get an Olympus XA rangefinders, Minox, etc (or for that matter any number of good SLRs or TLRs). I know what I'd rather spend the cash on. It's true that you only need to do a bit of research to not get fooled, so I guess you could say the people who pay $100 for a Lomo had it coming, and good luck to the sellers. But to me it looks like a big con trick, and the fact that the buyer should know better doesn't mean the seller deserves to make all that money off them.

Rolleistef · Jul 6, 2006

i can't imagine that a Lubitel, that once (well, a year ago) cost 15$, is now worth more than 60!! I'm glad I've got one, but never tried it... because his big Rolleiflex brother would be angry if I used that cheap plastic thing instead of a 2lbs, metal, glass and loving craftmanship camera...

skylark · Jul 6, 2006

Rolleistef said:
well it was not for a Lomo but for a Kiev 645, which is, however, more or less the same thing.
I found it new with accessories for 380$ on ebay..
Skylark - what lubi did you use for that? Lubitel 1, 2 or 166U?

166B, bit upmarket for a Lubi really :sexywink:

Rolleistef · Jul 9, 2006

I've got a Lubi2, which of the two takes the worst pictures? :lol:

manfromh · Jul 12, 2006

A Kiev isnt exactly a lomo. Okay im not sure about medium format Kievs, but i have a Kiev-4a. Its a contax copy, but its made out of real contax parts. Optics are quite good as well. So, Kiev and Lomo arent the same thing.