Do you see the world through Lomo eyes?

[steven_mills1]

<p>I've read a few Lomo photographers say things like they've always seen the world through a Lomo lens - even before they knew about Lomo cameras. That when they started shooting Lomo, it all made sense to them- it was already their view of things. These photographers are completely at one with using their Lomo camera as it's merely an extension of their eyes. I sort of understand this, but then again it's quite abstract. I'd be very interested to hear if anyone out there feels this way. Perhaps they can express this a bit more clearly?</p>

[randall ellis]

<p>A lot of people say a lot of things, sometimes because they mean it and sometimes because they think it sounds good/intelligent/cool/whatever. That said, I can see how there could be something to this for some people. I know that I find certain photographic <em>things</em> (for lack of a better descriptor) to fit perfectly with the vision I have. Many people have worked very successfully with pinhole cameras, which are not all that far removed from the plastic cameras you refer to, because the resulting images expressed what they wanted to express in the fashion in which they wanted to express themselves. I choose to do (photographically) what I do because it fits the vision I have - it presents to the viewer the final result that I wanted to present because that was the best way to present the ideas that I had, in my opinion.</p>

<p>Not everyone does that. Some people get wrapped up in ideas that others started and never develop their own ideas, instead relying on some technique or other to be the point of their efforts. Others have a strong idea but never are able to get the technical side of things to work out the way they want. Everybody is different in that regard, and there likely is no real right or wrong so long as you are happy with what you are doing and you are expressing your own vision rather than just copying popular or famous works.</p>

<p>I personally have gone through a lot of stages in my photographic life, and I expect that I will continue to do. Each stage has, I hope, changed me for the better, allowing me to better express my vision, both technically and artistically. My chosen equipment, materials, and techniques support my vision in this effort, and I can see how someone would find any given tool to be a great boon in their efforts to express themselves in a given way...</p>

<p>- Randy</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I believe I see the world through Larry's eyes. I saw these shot the night before I took them in a dream. I had driven by this statue the day before and the next day I went and took the picture.<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2543/3813890513_204d6a278e_b.jpg" alt="" width="687" height="1024" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2672/3813890769_0bc92f5a0e_b.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="1024" /></p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>I don't see how buying a poorly made camera from Urban Outfitters is going to fit your personal vision. If you have a personal vision outside of the norm then experimenting with camera hacking will probably get you much much closer to your personal reality than a new Holga off the shelf.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Or getting a good camera then expanding on you vision through processing and focal Using different lenses.. taking a few basic classes on the art of photography and reading a few books....</p>

<p> It is 1 thing to see something it is another to present it. I do have a Holga though that is not a Lomo camera and I do have a Lomo but not the one that the Lomo folks love. No mine is an 8M an older manual LOMO.. Lomo is a camera not a style...</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2371932"><em>Steven Mills</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Aug 13, 2009; 09:20 a.m.</em><br>

<em>These photographers are completely at one with using their Lomo camera as it's merely an extension of their eyes.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steven, I've been creating art that way for decades. The camera is my pencil. It's the fastest way to record what I see. Most photographers have no artistic or design training, and are obsessed with their gear, like somehow that elusive 'perfect lens' or that secret photoshop script will make them photo-heroes. It's sad that those of us who are not camera geeks, but artists / designers are relegated to 'Lomo' shooters, the implication being that we do slipshod work with cheesy cameras.<br />Yeah, Like vanGogh did nasty paintings when he was doing a a painting a day. vanGigh didn't need an editing program, his work was correct from jump.<br>

There's nothing abstract about it, really.<br>

I spent years training my eyes to see, then I just push the button to save what I see. That's what all great artists are doing, not just photographers.<br>

You can take oil painting classes forever (and many people do), but until you can see, it's pointless.<br>

My suggestion is to get yourself a book or two on picture composition, and art appreciation. You can learn what the masters knew, you can train yourself to see what they saw.<br>

Then apply that training to your craft, push the button and enjoy. That's the secret, really.<br>

I hope that clears it up a bit for you.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

[tony_killen1]

<p>Bill, the Holga phenomenon is the answer to over-priced, over-complicated, optically flawless but soul-less technology. Lomo shooters use just about the most basic equipment that can make a photograph today. It's completely authentic. And in my opinion, anything that's passed through Photoshop is no longer a photograph, any more than than a painting that's not made by a human holding a brush with paint on it can be considered a painting. I was at a fund raiser on Friday evening and was looking at some photographs to purchase. As soon as I read how one photographer had used Photoshop to get this-or-that "special effect", I moved on. I don't want computer generated special effects. I purchased a B&W print instead.<br>

Tony</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Bill, the Holga phenomenon is the answer to over-priced, over-complicated, optically flawless but soul-less technology.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And this statement is a reflection of ignorance about the history of photography. The Holga is a direct descendant of the Diana, which was used during the 60s and 70s, long before any newer technologies were around. It was used in the same way.<br>

<br /> Technology does not have soul or no soul. It's a collection of stuff, metal, plastic, leather, whatever. It's a bit odd to do the anthropomorphic thing to it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was at a fund raiser on Friday evening and was looking at some photographs to purchase. As soon as I read how one photographer had used Photoshop to get this-or-that "special effect", I moved on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>About ten years ago, I was participating in San Francisco Open Studios when someone ran up to one of my photographs, taken with Ultra 50 and hand printed quite large on Crystal Archive for a very distinctive look, and called to his friend, "Look at this, it's beautiful." His friend came over, looked at it and said, "But it's a photograph." They immediately turned and walked away.<br>

<br /> Some people like art because it does something for them, and some people obviously prefer materials science to art. I figure I should have sold him some canvas, a brush and a few tubes of oil paint for $500, it was what he wanted. We (including some painters) all had a good laugh about it even though I didn't get a sale.</p>

[tony_killen1]

<blockquote>

<p>And this statement is a reflection of ignorance about the history of photography. The Holga is a direct descendant of the Diana, which was used during the 60s and 70s, long before any newer technologies were around.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you read what I wrote, you'd see that I was referring to the Holga <em>phenomenon</em> , not to the Holga camera itself. By this I mean a re-discovery of the possibilities of unpredictability, of chance, of error, of lack of "perfection", of new and surprising ways of seeing things that advanced cameras have made impossible because they have engineered the process of taking photographs to a very high technical standard that leaves little chance for unintended outcome, something I consider soul-less.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>The "phenomenon" is old, it was a craze in the 60s when it was the Diana.</p>

<p>I'm sure that Michelangelo randomly pushed paint at his pieces to make sure there was some chance of unintended outcome and some real "soul."</p>

[tony_killen1]

<p>You seem so aggressive for some reason! Michelangelo planned his paintings carefully. Jackson Pollock let paint fall in drips onto the canvas. What of it?</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>My point is that nobody is calling Michelangelo's paintings "soul-less" because he knew exactly how they were coming out. This is a silly assignment of quality based on methodology. You can't say that something is "soul-less" or has "soul" because of the materials and techniques. It's about the results, the art, not the technology. Unfortunately, some people assign superpowers to technology.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I did not know how these would turn out. It was Vericolor C-41 film designed to make slides from negatives. I shot them in a camera in daylight and with flash as this is an ISO 6-8 film had it processed as a negative in C-41.<br>

Talk about not knowing. but I do now. there was nothing done to the scans other than a few flips and on 1 I did a contrast adjustment.. but not the ones I am posting here..</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3485/3982679146_ec37b3d68a_b.jpg" alt="" width="720" height="1024" /><br>

Blue Grass<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2517/3982664230_89ec51486e_b.jpg" alt="" width="695" height="1024" /><br>

Blues Guitar.</p>

 

[iona_vorster]

<p>Lomo is still photography. It's just a more care free way of recording what's around you. So therefore, different people would see things differently, and feel the need to record them differently. Some would want to take time and work out their settings, or add filters and effects in photoshop later, some would want freer, crazier photos taken in the moment.<br>

It's a matter of opinion guys, no right or wrong here. After all, photography is art. And when you start dictating what's right and wrong it's jut going to ruin it for everyone.</p>

[kamal_passi]

<p>i like it very much........</p>