What Does "Lomo" Mean?

<p>I've seen this term used only in recent time, and wonder- what exactly does LOMO mean anyway? I think its in reference to using Holga type cameras, but haven't found anything to confirm that.</p>

<p>Google makes it easy<br>

<br>

From lomography.com</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It began with a fateful encounter in the early 1990s, when a group of students in Vienna, Austria, stumbled upon the Lomo Kompakt Automat...</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

From Wikipedia</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>LOMO</strong> (<a title="Russian language" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language">Russian</a>: ЛОМО́) or Leningrad Optical Mechanical Amalgamation (<strong>Л</strong>енинградское <strong>O</strong>птико-<strong>M</strong>еханическое <strong>O</strong>бъединение)</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p>So all it is -is a company? I saw some reference to them making a Diana copy camera, which would back up the Holga connection.</p>

<p>You really need to go to lomography.com and click on the About link</p>

 

I can't say that I understand the point of Lomography; using toy cameras with inferior plastic lenses, expired film, then often

cross-processing that film in chemicals for which it was never intended seems a rebellion against technology, but perhaps

that is the point. It's certainly not my thing, but anything that keeps people interested in film is a positive.

<p>I equate it to steampunk jewelry and the 'hipster" movement (except in the UK where the term hipster apparently refers to some sort of trousers). It seems to be some sort of mostly young people having fun with inexpensive "retro" tools to achieve a distinctive photographic vision.</p>

<p>I recall in 1997, one of my workmates after viewing my work frustratingly stated that my work was, "Too Technical for her." She then showed her work out of a Holga. I didn't judge her result, or cast aspersions that it was what is was. That was my introduction to what was in that case, and many as a rebellious approach to the notion of Photography. I found it interesting that they insisted my work was problematic for them, as they casted it, and insisted that it was their way or the highway. Funny that at all, groups should break out over an art form, one claiming dominance over another like this is some sort of gangland activity forbidding the use of Aperture, and Shutter speed control. Having said that, I've seen works from these machines that are admirable. </p>

<p>I am with you Tony. I don't understand them either. The kind of things they do seem to work better with a p&s digital. But I would not want to say anything because like you I want more people to use film. </p>

<p>I have a n old photo of my wife;'s grandparents taken with some kind of square 620 or 127 camera is is clear and reasonably sharp.<br>

I also have seen [photos from my wife's brownie hawkeys.,<br>

and my old old photos from my 16 exposure minicam. all seem as good or better<br>

than the Holga / diana cameras.<br>

I asked a few months ago, If there was some kind of eye-level camera with a real lens and shutter.<br>

sort of a Diane with a real lens. they are few and far between.<br>

even the very Cheap 1950's Kodak <br />"advanced style" box cameras were better.</p>

<p>I just cannot see it.</p>

<p>I'm 54, but maybe that's too old to understand the lure of Lomography? Maybe I'm just too old to 'get it'? My generation was always interested in the sharpest lenses, the finest grain films, etc. Then along comes the Lomographers that seem to want to do everything possible to degrade their images, a complete 180, and at a relative steep price. Certainly they could further degrade images from an already crappy, cheap digital point and shoot or phone cam, and not have the expense of processing? Hey, but if it keeps the film machines rolling, I'm all for it :-)</p>

<p>It means Leningrad Optical Mechanical Conglomerate, Leningrad is Soviet name for St. Petersburg.<br>

I was starting with their camera, when i was a kid.</p>

<p>this just popped up on BBC - 20 Years of Lomography http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-20442725</p>

"I can't say that I understand the point of Lomography . . ."

 

Keep in mind there are many millions of people who don't understand the point of shooting film. Or shooting black & white. Or spending lots of money on cameras. Or typing messages on an internet forum about photography.

<p>I think it looks fun. After all. How many photoshop users can't resist oversaturating and otherwise seriously, and we are given to know, artistically altering a photo. I think this is just more of the same. I remember back in the 70's messing around with the E-6 processing kits to get some odd effects. Its photoshop for film. <br>

The new Corel Paintshop Pro X5 Ultimate has a feature called Retro lab. It is designed to give you old timey lofi film effects similar to LOMO effects. There are youtube videos showing how to do it. </p>

 

<P>I shoot many types of film with many types of cameras to get different effects and styles. I like lomo film and why not use it. I think it is better then using photo shop to get an effect but most have no problems with photo shop so we should except Lomo as an alternative . I have read and heard that Holga film photos have outsold digital prints in the same art shows and have heard/read it on forums and from a photogrpaher i know, who's friend shoots with Holga's.</P>

<p>The "Lomo" mystique is even being used on ebay. Some sellers of expired film (especially film for which chemistry is out of production for like C-22) will have Lomography or similar Lomo terms as part of the item description. <br>

The earliest Lomo I heard of was a small, scale focus, point and shoot (sporting a 35mm f2.8 lens) and autoexposure that some enthusiast would shoot from the hip (without using viewfinder) to see what they could get. Of course if one wants to take pictures this way they could pick up an Olympus Stylus Epic or Nikon Lite Touch for a fraction of the cost and have a better camera as well.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I'm 54, but maybe that's too old to understand the lure of Lomography? Maybe I'm just too old to 'get it'? My generation was always interested in the sharpest lenses, the finest grain films, etc. Then along comes the Lomographers that seem to want to do everything possible to degrade their images..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tony, I'm 55 and not too old to understand it. After spending several years on technically sound and correct b&w photography I found it uninspiring. I wasn't motivated and wasn't really enjoying photography anymore.</p>

<p>It was a relief to admit that since I was a kid first getting into photography, I was always drawn to ordinary snapshots and hints of the odd among the seemingly mundane. Most of the photographers whose work I find compelling have styles that might be termed the snapshot aesthetic. I find most family or personal documentary photography fascinating. I'm probably among the few visitors who won't mind looking through the family photo album on the coffee table.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...seem to want to do everything possible to degrade their images..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some photographers, notably <a href="http://www.emilschildt.com">Emil Schildt</a>, have elevated this to a unique art form. In recent years Sally Mann has used hand coated collodion plates which, in a video documentary, she says she enjoys for the flaws that result from her technique - as contrasted against the earliest practitioners who mastered collodion coatings to minimize such flaws.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Hey, but if it keeps the film machines rolling, I'm all for it :-)"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now *that* I can agree with.</p>

One can create photographic "art" (whatever

it is) with any camera but I'm afraid that

Lomography is just a fuzzy expression of a

very fuzzy idea.

I like the lomo/holga/diana movement. I like that it allows more people to experience all the joys of film photography and developing film. I

like that it keeps demand up for film products. And I like that so many schools are firing up their old dark rooms. I enjoy taking my Holga out

for a spin. It makes me think differently about photography. And I am 54 also.

<p>Based on what I've seen, "lomo" means hipster sucka.</p>

<p>Lomo's La Sardina model just <del>screams</del> meows "Hello, Kitty".</p>

<p>Back before I had heard of the concept of "Lomo" I was exhibiting at a gallery with several other artists, there was one other photographer and she asked me if I knew anything about cameras. It turned out she had no idea how to use her entirely manual West German Practica. She would just focus and hoped for the best. She told me she liked the element of surprise not knowing if what she got would be amazing or a wash. </p>

<p>Fast forward to today, I have some hipster friends (I'm 30) and they all seem to be interested in our photographic past and want to know about film, they just assume that bad pictures are what film is all about.</p>

<p>I personally don't like the results of the Lomography concept / idea. Having said that I popped in recently in the Lomography shop here in Milan, not too far away from my office, and I found a very buzzy and fresh atmosphere. Lots of ideas, discussions - they showed me their brand new 6x12 camera and we chatted about whether a large format camera was in the pipeline.<br>

Everything centered around film photography, and I myself like it very much if people are still shooting film. Only negative point: all the people in the shop were half my age - I'm 50 next year. Well, not <em>that</em> negative, some girls around were definitively pretty, but let's say I was a bit puzzled..</p>

<p>many years ago (before 'Lomo' was coined) i took a all plastic camera to a wedding; it was a 4x4 all plastic 'Diana' (or Diana clone-can't remember) which i brought from the local "TG&Y" discount store. It was in the Toy section next to the plastic water pistel. About 50 cents. I took it as well as my regular cameras (nikon,hasselblad) and later when i got back with the photos the couple prefered Diana shots. They didn't know what cameras i was really using; they didn't say "was "THIS" taken by a Leica single stoke or double stoke". They were ONLY interested in the RESULTS! The image....</p>

<p>I am sixty-one years old, and I like, y'know, totally get Lomo. Sure, some of it is about 'hipster' coolness and Thinking Different®. A lot of it is about a reaction to the ridiculous complexity of digital cameras. The bloody manual for a mid-range P&S is only slightly shorter than <em>War and Peace</em> and the latter is easier to understand. As someone on this forum said, we don't know what the tulip and the one-legged dancer do. When I worked at the late, not-much-lamented Ritz Camera, I sold a lot of cameras. I quickly learned not to talk too much about features, modes, etc. Want to make a customer's eyes glaze over? Try to explain white balance. The most common help I provided for users was to reset their cameras to factory defaults. And even that wasn't easy. Which of the forty-seven menus do I need? God help the poor souls who were talked into DSLRs.</p>

<p>Lomo is the opposite of digital. No menus, no nothing. Point camera, take picture. Send film out, get film back with prints. No worry about Eye-Cue, See-A or even Bokeh. Can you imagine Suzie Hipster saying, "I need to upgrade to the new Holga MkIV. It's got a much worse lens, and way cooler light leaks!" The digital equivalent of Lomo is iPhone-ography. Point phone, take picture. Run picture through random app. Upload picture.</p>