Lomography Fading?

[KmH]

From my day, being hip meant you were NOT blindly following the herd.

QFT!

 

[Vautrin]

I honestly think Lomography doesn't have the right price point. Their development, their film, and their cameras are all more expensive than I can get independently.

Seriously, when I can get a Pentax K1000 for $40 why would I by a Zenit camera for $200?

If I can buy a Yashica or Rolliflex for $60 why would I buy a Lubitel for $200?

They do some cool things, and have some cool concepts, but honestly their prices are outrageous.

$12 for development and prints? I have a pro lab that does it for half the price, why would I frequent LomoLabs?

 

[Tiller]

$12 for development and prints? I have a pro lab that does it for half the price, why would I frequent LomoLabs?

Thats actually right around the going price for 120 film.

 

[compur]

I honestly think Lomography doesn't have the right price point. Their development, their film, and their cameras are all more expensive than I can get independently.

Seriously, when I can get a Pentax K1000 for $40 why would I by a Zenit camera for $200?

If I can buy a Yashica or Rolliflex for $60 why would I buy a Lubitel for $200?

Indeed.

Lomography is an example of over-profiteering what began as a simple, inexpensive and fun type of photography into an over-marketed rip-off. Selling cheaply made plastic cameras for hundreds of dollars. For the price of one of these cameras a newby to film photography could buy a decent used medium format camera or a 35mm camera with a bag full of lenses and really get involved with the art.

BTW, I don't mean that there is anything wrong with Toy Camera Photography (its original name) -- I think it's a fun and valid form of art and is akin to pinhole photography. But, the whole idea originaly was to use cheap cameras found at flea markets, thrift stores, etc. for a few dollars, one of the most popular of these being the old Diana camera and its clones. If one could create engaging photos with these low-tech cameras then it was a real demonstration of one's competence as a photographer.

IMO, Freestyle always had a better approach (and still does) with their Holga cameras which sell for, I think, about $25 for a basic camera -- a reasonable price for a manufactured item of this type in today's world. You can spend more if you wish but you can still get started with a basic Holga at a reasonable price.

There are also plenty of old box and folding cameras that accept 120 film available for about the same price as the Holga. Image quality from some of these may be a little too good to keep it in the Toy Camera class but you can always shoot them through a Vaseline smeared filter.

 

[limr]

If I can buy a Yashica or Rolliflex for $60 why would I buy a Lubitel for $200?

Well, you can actually get a real Lubitel for $60. And a real Rolliflex will probably go for more than $60, unless you're good at tinkering and buy one that needs a little TLC.

I love my (original) Lubitel.

But Lomography was never really marketed towards people who would think about such things. They are geared for people who don't really want to think too much about their gear. Sure, Holgas, for example, appeal to some people who are more interested than your average Williamsburg hipster, but they are a somewhat ancillary market. So, as has been pointed out, if people could get that cool retro look and think even less about it, then the exodus from Lomography to Instagram makes perfect sense.

 

[limr]

...

BTW, I don't mean that there is anything wrong with Toy Camera Photography (its original name) -- I think it's a fun and valid form of art and is akin to pinhole photography. But, the whole idea originaly was to use cheap cameras found at flea markets, thrift stores, etc. for a few dollars, one of the most popular of these being the old Diana camera and its clones. If one could create engaging photos with these low-tech cameras then it was a real demonstration of one's competence as a photographer.
...

True, but I think they were able to get away with those prices because the people who jumped on that bandwagon didn't want to figure out how to use or fix those old cameras they could find. They wanted something that would work right out of the box so they could be INSTANTLY COOL!

There are also plenty of old box and folding cameras that accept 120 film available for about the same price as the Holga. Image quality from some of these may be a little too good to keep it in the Toy Camera class but you can always shoot them through a Vaseline smeared filter.

Or reverse the lens!

And speaking of 'too good to keep it in the Toy Camera class", I have to once again beat the dead horse and mention my Lubitel. Remarkably good for a piece of plastic.

I didn't buy any Lomography cameras until recently when I paid $35 for the Konstruktor kit, but that's because I wanted to put it together. And if I remember correctly, when it came out and the price was revealed, the reaction seemed to be "Finally, they got the price right!"

 

[compur]

^ Yes, bandwagon jumpers is right. It started out as bandwagon avoiders (avoiding "proper" cameras) and it ended up as bandwagon jumpers because what was uncool became cool just because it wasn't what was cool. Or something like that.

 

[rexbobcat]

I was shopping in Whole Foods a few years ago in Austin, TX, and I saw an ad for a lomographer(?). And this person was dead serious.

Stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason I guess lol

 

[Vautrin]

If I can buy a Yashica or Rolliflex for $60 why would I buy a Lubitel for $200?

Well, you can actually get a real Lubitel for $60. And a real Rolliflex will probably go for more than $60, unless you're good at tinkering and buy one that needs a little TLC.

I love my (original) Lubitel.

But Lomography was never really marketed towards people who would think about such things. They are geared for people who don't really want to think too much about their gear. Sure, Holgas, for example, appeal to some people who are more interested than your average Williamsburg hipster, but they are a somewhat ancillary market. So, as has been pointed out, if people could get that cool retro look and think even less about it, then the exodus from Lomography to Instagram makes perfect sense.

Guess I just got lucky then

 

[SoulfulRecover]

I was shopping in Whole Foods a few years ago in Austin, TX, and I saw an ad for a lomographer(?). And this person was dead serious.

Stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason I guess lol

Lomography is still huge in Austin. yay for hipsters :er:

 

[cgw]

I was shopping in Whole Foods a few years ago in Austin, TX, and I saw an ad for a lomographer(?). And this person was dead serious.

Stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason I guess lol

Lomography is still huge in Austin. yay for hipsters :er:

So huge they decided to close the store, right? Maybe I missed the irony?

 

[SoulfulRecover]

the store may have closed but all the kids are still into it. pretty much all I hear about at the art institute and it seems exceedingly popular with my younger stepsisters generation.

 

[gsgary]

If I can buy a Yashica or Rolliflex for $60 why would I buy a Lubitel for $200?

Well, you can actually get a real Lubitel for $60. And a real Rolliflex will probably go for more than $60, unless you're good at tinkering and buy one that needs a little TLC.

I love my (original) Lubitel.

But Lomography was never really marketed towards people who would think about such things. They are geared for people who don't really want to think too much about their gear. Sure, Holgas, for example, appeal to some people who are more interested than your average Williamsburg hipster, but they are a somewhat ancillary market. So, as has been pointed out, if people could get that cool retro look and think even less about it, then the exodus from Lomography to Instagram makes perfect sense.

Are you sure you don't mean Rollicord

 

[Derrel]

It's kinda' weird...the very FIRST lo-fidelity images I ever saw were in Popular Photography, back in the mid/late 1970's, and had been taken with the old Diana plastic-lens camera...but that movement, the lo-fidelity movement, never really caught on until the 1990's. Not sure why, exactly...maybe it was the old so-called wisdom that a photo always needed to be "sharp" in order to be worthwhile, in order to have photographic validity. Kind of the way the Pictorialism movement of the late 1800's to early 1900's was quashed so,so mercilessly by dogmatic A-holes like Ansel Adams, with his tireless running down of his nemesis, William Mortensen, whom Adams called "the devil" and "the anti-Christ"...

50 Watts

I dunno...it seems like photography has a pretty regular pendulum...fads and trends come and go, come and go, and things swing between realism and altered reality, between "accurate" ways of photographing, and "altering" ways of photographing. And whenever one,single company gets big and dominant, it seems like that company eventually loses its hold; once Rolleiflex was a dominant player; once the Speed and Crown Graphics dominated; at one time Polaroid was a force, now Polaroid is pretty much dead and gone; Kodak was a colossus, now it's bankrupt; Leica once "owned" journalism, then lost out to Nikon, then Nikon lost favor to Canon; and so on and so on.

I put forth the idea that almost ANY "idea" or "method" in popular photographic culture has at most, a 20-year lifespan as a leading-edge idea or method.

 

[cgw]

the store may have closed but all the kids are still into it. pretty much all I hear about at the art institute and it seems exceedingly popular with my younger stepsisters generation.

Guess none of them own smartphones. Frankly, I've never seen anyone 18-25 with a toy/plastic/Lomography Store-type camera in any place they might show up in downtown Toronto. Lots of iPhones pointed everywhere, though.