Lomography

[tr0gd0o0r]

Has anyone heard about Lomography. A friend of mine was talking to me about it, and from what I've seen on the web, it seems to be photography but not paying attention to any of the technical aspects at all (to thepoint of not using a viewfinder). Anyone else know about this and can give a better description?

 

[ksmattfish]

Point-n-shoot with a slow shutter and marketing. The main Lomo camera is always set on slow sync; most modern point-n-shoots have a similar exposure mode, except they are half the price .

 

[tr0gd0o0r]

I knew you'd come through on some obscure photography technique, or hype. Whichever this fits into

 

[ksmattfish]

They try to market these like they have a special light-amplifying lens left over from cold-war KGB technology, but it's just a little bit fast compared to the zoom lens that most point-n-shoots have these days, and it uses slower than normal shutter speeds to slow-sync. The results can be cool, but like I said, completely possible on almost any other camera also. I think $150, or whatever they are charging these days is way too much for a plastic camera. They are maybe worth $40, on a good day (IMHO).

 

[simnine]

gimmick

 

[Artemis]

Photography is an art...so this is a new type of art this lomography is....sounds like lonar photography

Have you ever seen different types of art?
There is a composer called john cage...and he created a piece called 4:33.

I can teach you all how to play it, walk up to your piano, close the top, and sit there for 4 mins 33 seconds...and then lift the lid, get up, and walk away.

The funny thing is he, or one of his family, sued someone cause they had silence in their song.

But is 4:33 a gimmick, or a type of art? Dadaism I think the name is.

 

[StvShoop]

i believe the point of dadaism was to expand/change people's perception of what art is. from what i've read on this thread, seems like the lomo thing is just a gimmick for some company to make some fast, undeserved cash.

the dadaists might have made money on their pieces, i dunno. from what little i know about the movement, it seems that it was focused on humanistic intentions.

 

[Artemis]

You know more than me mate no doubt, but just trying to rais a point? is it just the money...or is it art?

 

[StvShoop]

You know more than me mate no doubt, but just trying to rais a point? is it just the money...or is it art?

i'm not trying to be a wise guy sry if it came off that way
i don't believe that it's possible to sell an "art process" though... creativity depends on the artist; if the equipment is made to be geared for a narrow range of possible photos, that's the manufacturer's creativity, not the user's.

if the above is horribly off topic, everyone just ignore me plz. i don't know anything about lomography, i'm speculating, and i feel pretentious talking about it :taped sh:

 

[Artemis]

Just thought Id say mate when I said you knew more I was just beng honest, not sarcastic Ive seen your other posts and you seem like the knowledgeble man about these things.

And I don't think we mind yah speculating, to be honest your views on this are very interesting.

But...Alright...there was a piece of art that was a urinal, and the guy signed it, didnt the manufacturer make the urinal? so its the same as lomography.

 

[ksmattfish]

I can't tell you what art is, but I can tell you what Lomography is.

Lomography is taking a $35 to $40 plastic point-n-shoot camera from the ex-USSR, coming up with a story about it's special properties of light amplification (which is just slowing down the shutter), packaging it with a poster and a T-shirt, and convincing people it's hip and trendy, and charging $160 for it.

Can people make "art" with it? Sure, but it's mostly about cash money!!! Skip the T-shirt and poster, and get an Olympus Stylus Epic for $80 or $90, set it on "nightscene" exposure mode, and you have a much better camera that'll do the same thing as a Lomo camera for half the price.

"Lomo" has come to refer to many plasticy cameras coming out of the ex-USSR, and some aren't too expensive, and do a pretty good job (such as the Lubitel TLR). If folks want to use a plastic camera, have fun, make art, then more power to them. I just don't like the excessive price, and hipster marketing campaign that the Lomo sellers are using. Rather than educate their customers in photo basics (slow sync technique), they try to shroud it in some mystery of "Dr. Lomo" or whoever. They even try to push their own "special" film, which is just cheapo 35mm, and processing.

All that bitching aside, I have friends who've bought these things, and have fun with them. They agree that it's probably silly to pay so much for a cheap camera, poster, and a T-shirt, but they like it. To each their own, I guess.

 

[Artemis]

I can't tell you what art is, but I can tell you what Lomography is.

Lomography is taking a $35 to $40 plastic point-n-shoot camera from the ex-USSR, coming up with a story about it's special properties of light amplification (which is just slowing down the shutter), packaging it with a poster and a T-shirt, and convincing people it's hip and trendy, and charging $160 for it.

Can people make "art" with it? Sure, but it's mostly about cash money!!! Skip the T-shirt and poster, and get an Olympus Stylus Epic for $80 or $90, set it on "nightscene" exposure mode, and you have a much better camera that'll do the same thing as a Lomo camera for half the price.

"Lomo" has come to refer to many plasticy cameras coming out of the ex-USSR, and some aren't too expensive, and do a pretty good job (such as the Lubitel TLR). If folks want to use a plastic camera, have fun, make art, then more power to them. I just don't like the excessive price, and hipster marketing campaign that the Lomo sellers are using. Rather than educate their customers in photo basics (slow sync technique), they try to shroud it in some mystery of "Dr. Lomo" or whoever. They even try to push their own "special" film, which is just cheapo 35mm, and processing.

All that bitching aside, I have friends who've bought these things, and have fun with them. They agree that it's probably silly to pay so much for a cheap camera, poster, and a T-shirt, but they like it. To each their own, I guess.

Well, thats a pritty clever way of putting it, but I just feel, one mans rubbish, is another mans Art, as you say to each his own.

Could someone give me a website of Lomography, I wanna check it out myself..

And wouldnt a slower shutter speed creat a blur if its point and shoot?

 

[Tok]

Finally, someone has mentioned about Lomography.

Wanted to start a similiar topic before but i was just too lazy to do it. Well, I've just purchased an Olympus Stylus Epic lately and actually, I was thinking about either to get The Epic or the Lomo LC-A. I love the Lomo camera (metal construction, retro look, simplicity, etc. etc. ) and hate the hype. I mean, the ideas that they are selling about how great the pics are due to a camera's poor performance is just a joke. I chose the Epic over because of the high-markup that the Lomo has - and I think that I'd be totally a sucker if I pay $200 US for a $60 max camera. In short, If the Lomo marketing ppl were adapted a more humble and realistic attitude in selling what the camera actually is, instead of all those silly selling points, then I would get the L-CA for sure.

 

[drlynn]

The website is www.lomography.com and has forums and galleries as well as a sales site. I must say that $60 for a Holga "kit" is a bit steep.

But they do have some pretty good info there. I got a few good tips on modifying my Holga myself instead of paying somebody an extra $20 to do it for me.

Artemis, about your urinal reference, I happen to agree. I have seen "still life" photos of a single object before, including a bed pan. No composition, no grouping, just an isolated shot. So is the artist the one that snapped the shutter, or the one who invented the bed pan?

 

[ksmattfish]

I was thinking about either to get The Epic or the Lomo LC-A. I love the Lomo camera (metal construction, retro look, simplicity, etc. etc. ) and hate the hype. I mean, the ideas that they are selling about how great the pics are due to a camera's poor performance is just a joke. I chose the Epic over because of the high-markup that the Lomo has - and I think that I'd be totally a sucker if I pay $200 US for a $60 max camera.

Yeah, I have no problem with any camera, as long as it is marketed truthfully, and the price reflects usable value. That's why I don't have a Hassy or Leica (actually, i just got an old Leica, but for cheap); I think they are some of the best cameras ever made, but their price reflects (or in the case of Hassy "reflected") a certain markup for "collector value" in my opinion.

The Epic is one of my favorite cameras of all time. I think it can do anything the Lomo can, and a lot more.

For folks who aren't familiar with "Lomo", the word is used both to describe a particular camera (the LC-A, I guess, and a whole group of cheaply made ex-USSR cameras).

I have a couple of Lomo SMENAs, which is a plastic body 35mm camera that has a glass lens, focus control, aperture and shutter control. I got mine for $12 each brand new (with a case and strap ).

I've seen pics taken with a Lubitel, which is a plastic TLR ($30 to $60 depending on the model) that uses 120 size film. I was actually very impressed. If you are interested in the Holga action, but would like to take a slightly different path, the Lubitel is the camera for you.

[/b]