True Lomographers?

<p>I only found out about lomo not very long ago, but alot I've seen of it seems commercialized/sold out/just a way for companies to make money.<br>

http://www.lomography.com.au/<br>

Such as on that site.<br>

I absolutely love the idea of Lomo. Taking spontaneous snapshots, from crazy angles, and just capturing the moment.<br>

So, I'm wondering, is there any community, or indeed people who do Lomo, but not in a commercialized way? As in, people who haven't just paid $100 dollars for a plastic camera that takes whacky pics.<br>

Thanks :)</p>

<p>Find a sale on Fuji Quicksnaps and get on flickr?</p>

<p>With any camera the whole point of it having been made is to get people to buy it to make money for the corporation that thought it up, there's really no company out there that makes anything and doesn't expect a profit. The bigger companies rely on name brand recognition and big box stores to drive their sales, and smaller companies like Lomo need to rely on creating lifestyles or emotions in order to sell their cameras. It's not a bad thing, its just the way the world works. The truth of the matter is too that even if you already own a $30000 high end medium format digital, you can still take spontaneous snapshots from crazy angles and capture the moment, you don't need a specialized camera for that. I am fairly positive that even a "spontaneous" site like the Lomo site was thought up by an ad exec in a cubicle somewhere. </p>

<p>Check out Gene M's posts on the Classic Manual Camera section of photo.net for a start. There's a whole world of $10 classic low-tech cameras out there. Despite what lomo says, taking good photos with a low-tech camera still requires a skill set, and there is a learning curve.</p>

<p>Check out our photos from the Ann Arbor Crappy Camera Club on Flickr. We are finishing up our 4th photographic exhibition at a gallery here in Ann Arbor. Lots of us use all manner of plastic cameras, etc. I'll give credit to Lomo for re-engineering the Diana camera. But you can't blame them for trying to make a buck from film cameras. http://www.flickr.com/groups/krappy/</p>

<p>Thanks guys :)</p>

<p>Lomographic Society? Oh yeah, those are the guys who try to get away with selling a Lubitel 166 TLR for $350! I suppose the if a person has more money than brains then they are these hucksters legal prey. Yes sir, step right up folks, still plenty of room at the front.</p>

<p>Hey, I've only been messing around with really lo-fi cameras for about a year. I find it really does add a new bit of variety to my other photography and it's refreshing to simplify things down a bit and just snap away sometimes. I agree with Matthew R., taking photos with a low-tec camera still requires a skill set and there's a learning curve.<br>

And I agree with everyone here that there are tons of lo-fi, lomographers out there who aren't buying all the suddenly-pricey lomo cameras. I started with a brownie twin 20 that was my dad's in the 60s and another brownie hawkeye I bought for less than $10 in a thrift store. There are also a lot of blogs out there who are just individuals or groups of lomographers who just enjoy sharing their work (just do some googling).<br>

But, I try not to be too put off by the newly booming business of lomo. I mean, it's a newly popular niche in a tremendously popular art form, some money has to be made somewhere, right? Besides the overpriced film and cameras, the business end of it does provide an infrastructure for a more globalized community to share and collaborate. I agree I'd like it to be a lot more organic though.</p>

I had a Lomo, before there was such a thing as "Lomography."

 

Let me tell you, it was an unholy piece of crap. The top plate is made of paper thin plastic. The lens is nothing to write home

about.

 

If you want a good, small camera get an Olympus XA. It's like a Lomo but actually good.

<p>Shucks, instead of a XA get an XA-2. Available for under $50 and still miles ahead of a LOMO LCA. Also, visit the Four Corners Dark website. Some great prices on plastic cameras and discussion of plastic cameras and other lo-fi photography subjects.</p>

The XA-2 is like an XA, but you can't see where you've focused.

 

I have had an XA-2 for a long, LONG time and have been looking high and low for a really nice XA (I have a crappy XA).

<p>Yes, you can buy used cameras for less that are <em>actually good</em> . I've got to think that the point of using these cameras however is that they <em><strong>are </strong> <strong>charmingly </strong> <strong>crappy</strong> </em> .</p>

<p>Even if the movement (if you want to call it that) is boosted by people who want to be paid for their efforts (shudder), I'm thinking that if it helps keep film alive that much longer, so much the better.</p>

<p>I think that people who suggest you can get a "good" camera for not much money are missing the point, and perhaps are incapable of even realizing there is a point to be missed. It doesn't have to be an official Lomography type of camera if you don't buy it from them. Any junk camera will do, of which there are hundreds. Lomography uses 35 mm, which is fun and more convenient, but the big action is with plastic/toy cameras which use the larger medium format film. There's something special about the results of light coming through a cheap lens but ending up on high quality, larger format film. It makes for a kind of instant pictorialism which hearkens back to the earlier decades of photography, when the film was large, and the lenses not so good. As for spontaneity, I would suggest that the best toy camera photography isn't as spontaneous as you think. It takes a lot thought, and some skill at using hyperfocal focussing, and appropriate exposure, not to mention spending a lot of time looking for suitable subjects and angles... and the right kind of light.</p>

<p>One camera that's cheap and plentiful in Ebay (they change hands for as little as £5!) is the Kershaw 110.<br>

It's a 1950s single-speed medium-format square-shooting folder with only two f-stops and fixed focus, and it gives me some fine results using ISO400 B&W film... I'm using Neopan 400CN which has plenty of latitude to cope with the more-or-less random shutter-speed.<br>

The pictures have a wonderfully 'vintage' feel about them, just slightly soft at the edges... pin-sharp in the middle if you use the smaller aperture but a little bit soft all over on the larger one.<br>

One great delight of that camera is it's as near to silent a camera as I've ever found so you can get away with using it in places you otherwise wouldn't - also, as the modern film is substantially faster than it was originally designed for you can get away with remarkably little light.<br>

The main art of getting the best out of simple gear is spotting the right shot in the first place, bearing in mind what's most likely to result given the foibles of your particular equipment... given practice that will become as instinctive as walking, but most of us took quite a while to learn that too. :-)</p>

<p>I use a Haking TLR I picked up for a dollar, same style as a holga just a hunderd dollars cheaper</p><div></div>

<p>@Andrew Lind<br>

I reckon you're going to have a heck of a lot of fun for your dollar!<br>

Life would be so much sweeter if film-stock and processing cost as little as some of the older cameras - and some of the ones that came out of Hong Kong like the Haking are especially good value.</p>

<p>The vignette is super! I wish my yashica could do that!</p>

<p>Technicalities aside some one should really come up with bulk roll 120 and loaders like they have for 35mm! Also Rob try mounting a square of thin card with a circular hole in it inbetween the lens and film, that will give you your vignette and if its thin enough the corners will only be slightly darker</p>

<p>An old trick for softening corners - or indeed any other part of the picture - is a little bit of petroleum jelly smeared on a clear filter leaving a clear bit in the middle of whatever size you like.<br>

You can experiment with this on your digital (to get an idea of what happens when you do different areas) to avoid wasting precious film, then move on to film once you've got your eye in.<br>

I first saw this done by professionals for wedding close up sequences, but I've adopted it for all manner of experimental mischief myself.<br>

If you can find any lipstick lying around the house - be very careful if you have a fierce wife - then the same technique using that will give you vignette to order if you're shooting B&W, and the potential for a lot of strangeness if you're shooting colour!</p>

<p>Yes, I was thinking about the jelly. I heard about it a while ago but never tried it. Do you have a link to some examples? The strength of the effect must change with aperture.</p>

<p>I mounted some black card in my yashica but haven't tried it out yet. Will do so this weekend.</p>

<p>What about manipulating the print instead of the camera? I thought about putting the paper for the enlargement on something non-flat to get the blurry corners, and could burn in the edges for the vignette.</p>

<p>Here's one example, a portrait of the bride - not my work but I was at the wedding and that's where I first saw it done.</p>

<p> Rob <img src="http://www.m0gdu.co.uk/vaselinetrick.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="731" /></p>

<p>Your problem may be that you're thinking "Lomography", the brand, as opposed to the type of photography. Forget about "lomography", and think "junk camera" photography, "toy camera" photography, etc. I like to use the term "alternative cameras", myself. It's sort of an extension of the pictorialism from earlier decades of photography. It's also about counter-culture, in a way, that is, the rejection of the need to buy into the technological hype. A good photographer can take powerful or at least, interesting and attractive photographs even with a cheap, junk, plastic camera, and the corporations and rich guys can stick their $10,000 plastic camera systems you know where. Even the great Henri Cartier Bresson complained about the obsession with sharpness and perfect focus.</p>

<p>And it's not just shooting every which way at crazy angles. In fact, I would bet that most good "lomography" photos are the result of a lot of thought, and perhaps even planning on the part of the photographer. It's actually not that easy to get good results, because you're dealing with cameras that have very limited controls - often a single shutter speed, and a single useful aperture, and if you're lucky, rudimentary guess focussing which is more wishful thinking than reality... not to mention a roughly-accurate viewfinder. The only variable you're left with is choosing the right film for the light you're going to be shooting in. And then you have to find the right subjects for the format... perhaps when you're carrying a "good" camera, and you make a mental note to come back later with the Diana or Holga.</p>

<p>Ultimately though, it's not anything, other than you having some fun with it. It's probably not that much fun anymore if you have to start defining it.</p><div></div>

<p>As I understand it, the college student founders of Lomography were actually studying marketing at the time. They stumbled across an old, dirt-cheap Russian camera -- the LC-A. They liked the flawed photos it produced, and ran with it.<br>

They've been quite successful in turning cheap, artsy, lo-fi and retro into cool. A granny walking into Walmart and buying a 12 megapixel auto-everything point-and-shoot = not cool. Turntables and records are having the same sort of resurgence right now, too.<br>

Yes, it is tech backlash. Perhaps a feeling of authenticity and integrity doing it old-school. It's easy to blaze away a bajillion shots with a digital camera, and then change everything about 'em with a computer program. It's sorta like Rocky IV, where the hero trains by mountain climbing and chopping down trees, while evil cold commie gets pumped up on computer-monitored machines and steroids.<br>

Besides, are the "best" drawings and paintings the most realistic? Have you seen the art instruction school TV commercial where that graduate dude draws a super-detailed bengal tiger face? There's a good reason that type of stuff ends up on tapestries sold out of the back of a van.<br>

There's some gold in some of the obsolete film cameras nobody wants, and you can't blame anybody for trying to earn a living mining it. It's super easy to be cynical about Lomo -- many don't understand or appreciate it. I suppose that reaction just pumps up the coolness factor. It's also very true that Lomo charges a lot of money for their stuff, while loads of other people practically give away their old film camera gear on eBay.<br>

You certainly can be a true Lomographer and save a lot of money; however, without buying from the Lomography store. The products they manufacture have value, however. A new Lubitel 166+ differs in features from a vintage 166U, and you're guaranteed a 100% operational camera when you buy it. I bought a 166 Olympic from Russia on eBay -- the process was kinda worrisome, but it ended up working out just fine.<br>

In my opinion, Lomography still needs to work on officially reconciling the "analog" lifestyle/attitude with the fact that their primary operation is a digital website. And, especially, how all the manually-produced photos on it are, in fact, digitized. Like it or not, photo digitization includes digital alteration/manipulation of one kind or another.<br>

So anyway, like beauty, art is in the eye of the beholder. If you're not into both shooting film and reasonably avoiding digitization, then you're better off sticking with whatever style turns your crank. With all sincerity, more power to 'ya! But be aware you'll feed the hype if you knock it - Lomo fans will only feel that much stronger about their passion.</p>

<p>thanks for sharing</p>

<p>I think it's easy to dismiss Lomo as a place where you can buy lo-tech stuff at high prices to be cool. I think this kind of marketing puts a lot of people off because it's kind of the same concept as buying really expensive name-brand sunglasses when cheapies will do.<br>

But it's not quite the same. When you're shopping for clothes, there is the understanding that you want to buy something that's modern and in style, even if you're not a fashion diva. I mean, you can go to any number of second-hand stores and keep yourself in good, durable second-hand clothing and go about your business not understanding anyone who would buy new clothes. Of people who buy new clothes, there are those who would never pay retail and only buy off the sale rack off season, still happy to get new name-brand clothes, but at a fraction of the cost. Then there are those who have to have the lastest clothes or accessories by top designers and exorbitant prices. None of these camps understand each other.<br>

Lomography is one that I resisted liking for a long time. I don't see what the big deal with the LC-A is and there are plenty of other P&S cameras to choose from that do just as good of a job.<br>

There are many, many people out there who know that there are plenty of cameras made out there that will do just as good of a job as a Leica, but then, there are the Leica people. They largely get left alone based on the perceived superiority of that product. You can name almost any other manufacturer and attached to each is an ethos and a following, disciples if you will.</p>