Lomography Fading?

[Gavjenks]

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?

First of all, rolleiflex for $60 -- lol?! Even Yashicas typically sell for closer to $200. If you're talking about garage sales from people who don't know what they're doing, then sure, you might get it for $5. But that's hardly a fair measure of going market prices for things. That's just taking advantage of ignorant people. You also spend hours of your time driving around, which adds up to some significant money in effort.

First 5 recently successfully sold listings on ebay for rolleiflexes in good looking condition, in order of showing up on search, no censorship:

1) $2,599 MINT ?mint ? Rollei Rolleiflex 2 8F TLR Film Camera W Planar 80mm F 2 8 W Filter | eBay
2) $1,525 MINT Rolleiflex 2 8F Camera | eBay
3) $203 RISKY "AS IS" FROM CLUELESS SELLER Rolleiflex 2 8F Camera | eBay
4) $100 BROKEN SHUTTER Rollei Rolleiflex Automat MX 3 5 Leather Case | eBay
5) $350 BROKEN DOOR LATCH Rolleiflex 3 5F | eBay

Yashicas are certainly much cheaper, but still a search shows $129, $299, $227, $75 (no guarantees or comment on function, and "as is"), and $99

So the lomography copies are actually on the cheap side of things.




Second of all, newly manufactured cameras are very different beasts. They are brand new. I assure you that a rolleiflex new cost way more than the equivalent of $200 in its day. I found one advertisement from around 1960 for $180 ish dollars, which would be approximately $800-900 in 2013 US dollars.

Some of the discount off of that is due to it no longer being state of the art, but some of the discount is also due to it being damn old and usually slightly falling apart and missing things or possibly being about to break. Plus no warranty. As you can see above, the truly mint-condition rolleis, no scratches on them ones with all accessories sell for thousands potentially, and have thus appreciated in price. When you buy a new lomo camera, you are getting brand new, not beaten, up, and warrantied to work for awhile. Though almost certainly lower quality, these are reasonably competitive features.

 

[cgw]

"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."

Yup, that was the early 90s zeitgeist. Zines everywhere, not much online, lots of un-slick photocopied DIY material--posters, handbills, postcards. Fun!

Nice NYT piece on "Bikini Kill," the preeminent Riot Grrrl band of the time that cranked out tons of the stuff:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/19/magazine/look-riotgrrrl.html

 

[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?

First of all, rolleiflex for $60 -- lol?! Even Yashicas typically sell for closer to $200. If you're talking about garage sales from people who don't know what they're doing, then sure, you might get it for $5. But that's hardly a fair measure of going market prices for things. That's just taking advantage of ignorant people. You also spend hours of your time driving around, which adds up to some significant money in effort.

First 5 recently successfully sold listings on ebay for rolleiflexes in good looking condition, in order of showing up on search, no censorship:

1) $2,599 MINT ?mint ? Rollei Rolleiflex 2 8F TLR Film Camera W Planar 80mm F 2 8 W Filter | eBay
2) $1,525 MINT Rolleiflex 2 8F Camera | eBay
3) $203 RISKY "AS IS" FROM CLUELESS SELLER Rolleiflex 2 8F Camera | eBay
4) $100 BROKEN SHUTTER Rollei Rolleiflex Automat MX 3 5 Leather Case | eBay
5) $350 BROKEN DOOR LATCH Rolleiflex 3 5F | eBay

Yashicas are certainly much cheaper, but still a search shows $129, $299, $227, $75 (no guarantees or comment on function, and "as is"), and $99

So the lomography copies are actually on the cheap side of things.




Second of all, newly manufactured cameras are very different beasts. They are brand new. I assure you that a rolleiflex new cost way more than the equivalent of $200 in its day. I found one advertisement from around 1960 for $180 ish dollars, which would be approximately $800-900 in 2013 US dollars.

Some of the discount off of that is due to it no longer being state of the art, but some of the discount is also due to it being damn old and usually slightly falling apart and missing things or possibly being about to break. Plus no warranty. As you can see above, the truly mint-condition rolleis, no scratches on them ones with all accessories sell for thousands potentially, and have thus appreciated in price. When you buy a new lomo camera, you are getting brand new, not beaten, up, and warrantied to work for awhile. Though almost certainly lower quality, these are reasonably competitive features.

I bought a Yashica for 60.... Brilliant condition, no problems. Double lens, waist level finder. No light meter but who needs one?

They had a rolliflex for the same price a few weeks ago that dissapeared between when I went away to "think about it" and came back

Guess I'm just lucky to have a good drug dealer (photography salesperson) nearby

 

[terri]

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.

Yep, yep, and yep. Thanks for even mentioning William Mortensen...not many do. He is a hero of mine, no surprise there I guess, given the stuff I do. You've also reminded me I meant to search out this book....whee!, at $200 + gotta be on the Christmas wish list.

 

[Gavjenks]

Guess I'm just lucky to have a good drug dealer (photography salesperson) nearby

Is everything priced like that? If so, do you enjoy your day job? Because if not, you could always just quit, go buy that guys' entire stock of everything, get a nice home product studio setup, and sell it all on ebay part time then go play golf or whatever =P