Rise of the llomo

<p>I am a photography student studying in london.<br>

I am currently undertaking a research paper and my area of interest is centered around how the domestic and consumer market is changing in the digital age.<br>

I am a llomo fan and have recently purchased a diana and have owned a fisheye for some time now.<br>

I love the results I get from both cameras and find myself using them more and more even though my course at university is mainly digital based.<br>

What I am interested in asking is what is it about llomo cameras that people on this forum find appealing?<br>

I certainly have my own reason to why I enjoy shooting with my diana and fisheye but would to like to try and get a broader picture and see if there are any similarities.... </p>

Surely it is LOMO....unless you have a sticky 'L' key on your keyboard!

<p>As Ted Orland said of Holgas, they "beat Hasselblads at every turn, and for good reason: 1) Holgas float! 2) you don’t have to buy a separate $65 Vignetting Filter; and 3) no one bothers to steal them. They’re even optically superior, carefully filtering out excessive sharpness so that realism doesn’t get mistaken for reality."</p>

<p>The complete lack of controls. You make a guess and shoot, nothing to think about, and if you end up with a good shot it's a great piece of luck, like getting a really impressive baseball card. Or, um, do they have "football" cards?</p>

<p>With the double L it's pronounced "Yo-mo".</p>

<p>Because after shooting at the skate park with the D300 you get really funny looks (and questions) from the kids when you drag out the Holga, take off the back and change a roll of 120 film!</p>

<p>Not personally a huge fan. For less money far superior cameras can be had these days. When the Holga came out, it was a student camera selling for $20 so that photography students could learn the in's and outs of medium format without investing hundreds or even thousands of dollars into a professional kit. Hoglas and used professional kits are now approaching the same value. Strange world eh?</p>

<p>I recently wrote up a little blog post on the subject of Lomography; <a href="http://planetstephanie.net/2009/11/01/good-bad-or-fugly/">good bad or fugly</a>.<br>

Readers digest version: Art is in the eye of the beholder. The lomo 'movement' probably started out with good ideals but has been taken over by marketing and money-making - Holgas, Dianas, LC-As and their ilk are very much over-priced - the 'brand' and 'movement' have 'sold out' as it were.<br>

Ultimately, 'art' is what the artist and the audience say it is. Badly framed, poorly focused, incorrectly exposed pictures might prove interesting now and then. These results can be accomplished without paying inflated prices to buy into a 'movement' and 'brand' however.<br>

I do have a Holga, but after a few rolls the novelty wore off and I boxed it. I paid less money for a 60 year old classic Zeiss Ikon Nettar folding MF camera, that can do everything the Holga can, plus it can also take excellent photos when I want too. And I don't have to worry about it falling apart unexpectedly.</p>

 

<p>Patrick "For less money far superior cameras can be had these days" <br>

<br>

I sort of see where you’re coming from. But to give a certain effect, why not use a Holga? You can pick up a new Holga 120N for $29US on the auction site. So anybody paying inflated prices is being pretty silly. Buying into the entire Lomography thing doesn’t make any sense either.<br>

<br>

I use a D300 for magazine work and for projects and have recently started using a Holga for fun and for projects. There may also be an opportunity soon to use the Holga for a mag job.<br>

<br>

The Holga is just another tool that you use to get a specified effect. I’ve loved using it and find it a real release from the mag work. I also don’t like the “point a Holga at something and it’s art” theory either.<br>

<br>

I don’t like the Lomography hype, but good on them selling film cameras! I couldn’t see the point in spending over $200 (here in New Zealand) for a new Diana so bought an Agfa Isoly for $12 instead!<br>

<br>

As an aside; I’ve found the reliability of exposures, framing etc to be pretty good and so far I’ve only stuck about 10 rolls through the Holga. But the results I’ve got have prompted me into buying another two so I can have B&W in one and a couple of speeds of colour etc in the others.<br>

<br>

The Holga definitely “frees me up” when shooting, but it’s a considered “free up” :-) But I still shoot the D300 too for what it offers. If a photo "screams" Holga i'll use it, if not then won't! :-)<br>

<br>

Cheers</p>

<p>For a look at what's possible with a plastic 120 camera:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.tedorland.com/holga/holga.html">http://www.tedorland.com/holga/holga.html</a></p>

<p>Good link Eric.</p>

<p>I like my Holga (in fact, I have three). In the beginning I was a little ambivalent about the results, but when I stopped treating it like a cheap camera that takes 'cheap' pictures I was able to get much better results out it. That being said, I like the Holga because of its unpredictability, the vingetting, the easy multiple or panoramic exposures you can do with it, etc. I found I became more creative and learned to see things differently when shooting with a Holga.</p>

<p>There <em>are</em> people who take Holgas and other cheap cameras seriously and treat them like real cameras. Here's a few other links:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.susanbowenphoto.com/">http://www.susanbowenphoto.com/</a><br>

<a href="http://terukuwayama.com/">http://terukuwayama.com/</a><br>

<a href="http://www.squarefrog.co.uk/holga-techniques-infrared.html">http://www.squarefrog.co.uk/holga-techniques-infrared.html</a><a href="http://www.michellebates.net/portfolio.html"></a><br>

<a href="http://www.davidburnett.com/photos/Presidents%20--and--%20Politics/16/">http://www.davidburnett.com/photos/Presidents%20--and--%20Politics/16/</a></p>

<p>Rachelle, yes, you get it. If you're going to shoot a plastic 120 camera, you have to be comfortable with the camera's limitations and open to its possibilities.</p>

<p>I think Stephanie nailed it. Those two Austrian blokes have found a way to sell $16 plastic cameras for $60 (the new diana) and make people think they are now in with the in crowd, photographically speaking. Have you seen what they are asking for a Lomo Lubitel 166-U? A real bargain at only....wait for it....$350, yes, thats right, not a typo with an extra zero, that's Three Hundred and Fifty US Dollars. That takes a lot of nerve. If a Lubitel 166 is $350 then my ancient Mamiya C-220 with an 80 f2.8 and prism finder and W/L finder MUST be worth at least $2000 (sarcasm alert).</p>

<p>John "MUST be worth at least $2000 " I'm willing to sell you an accessory roll of Lomography insulation tape for 50 bucks if you like. Cash only though, no credit cards accepted! :-)</p>

<p>I think the biggest advantage served by the plastic, toy camera movement is that they've succeeded in helping to keep film, and commercial film processing, alive.</p>

<p>Whether you like the look of these camera's images or not, if their users can keep film and film processing alive, then it's a good thing.</p>

<p>Philosophically, I'm amused by camera junkies who obsess over sharpness and mechanical precision and therefore deride plastic cameras. It's even more amusing when the users of said plastic cameras end up with some very intriguing images, sometimes more interesting than that produced by the ultra-sharp precision camera users.</p>

<p>It's always been about the skill and vision of the photographer, and not the gear.</p>

<p>As for what appeals to me about these sorts of images, I think it's the combination of square format, vignetted corners and sharpness only near the center of the frame that makes for interesting images.<br>

~Joe</p>

<p>I find the whole "lomo" "culture" and movement to be very silly and vaguely scammish.</p>

<p>I got a Lomo back in the 90s, before they were popular. It's a piece of crap.</p>

<p>People like crappy cameras, though - they think they're hip.</p>

<p>It depends on which Lomo we are discussing... if it's the original LCA, it's far from a piece of crap, and when used properly, it can yield pretty good results, particularly with Kodachrome 64 or 200. However, I look back at some of the photos that I shot with it, and wish in some cases that I had used my Nikon instead.</p>

<p>It's an interesting movement. Part scam, part brilliant I think. I found a Lubitel and Diana in an old camera collection of my dads and started shooting with them because I had seen people using the Holgas. The simplicity reignited a strong interest in photography and I became obsessed with how cameras worked. So for that, I think that they're brilliant. They're such a massive contrast to the hugely complicated, feature-ridden DSLRs that they make the reality of photography seem magical. And the grainy, unpredictable images were refreshing in contrast to anything modern. Once I understood what the camera was doing however, I wanted more control and picked up a rangefinder that I now use every day. <br>

On the other hand, that lomography site is a total scam. They're riding a wave of popularity and definitely making a lot of money from it. Luckily, the cameras are all available online for closer to what they're worth. </p>

<p>It's an interesting movement. Part scam, part brilliant I think. I found a Lubitel and Diana in an old camera collection of my dads and started shooting with them because I had seen people using the Holgas. The simplicity reignited a strong interest in photography and I became obsessed with how cameras worked. So for that, I think that they're brilliant. They're such a massive contrast to the hugely complicated, feature-ridden DSLRs that they make the reality of photography seem magical. And the grainy, unpredictable images were refreshing in contrast to anything modern. Once I understood what the camera was doing however, I wanted more control and picked up a rangefinder that I now use every day. <br>

On the other hand, that lomography site is a total scam. They're riding a wave of popularity and definitely making a lot of money from it. Luckily, the cameras are all available online for closer to what they're worth. </p>

<p>The one-L LOMO, he's a shooter<br>

The two-L Llomo is a tooter</p>

<p>But the three-L lllomo is a heck of a fire</p>

<p>apologies to Ogden Nash</p>

<p>Luke has asked almost identical questions on different PN forums. One was film vs digital, Holga, etc. </p>

<p>Maybe not anymore. We seem to be having time fluctuations or something happening here, but when I just checked Luke's page, he has nothing listed now? Not even this thread?</p>

<p>De dee de dee [Twilight Zone music]</p>

<p>theres realy nothing a lomo will offer you over your alternatives here. don't bother.</p>