Lomo

[riz]

How you find lomography? And do you pursue that?

 

For me it seems great for fine art photography.

[bueh]

<p>Stupid and gimmicky. The cameras are vastly overpriced. If that's your idea of art, or fine art,...</p>

[starvy]

<p>Hi Rizwan,<br>

I had been trying to think big in terms of negatives for a while. Lomo, Holga and Lubitels were very much in my mind. I read rather a lot here as well as looking through various forums and image sites. Then I had the chance to play with a few of these and what became apparent to me was that I was never going to be totally in control of the image. If your need for artistry is to conceptualise the final image and letting chance take over, I do believe that lomography is the way to go. However, I think that art has moved on from Rothko's bold use of the fundamental through primary colours. The artist is rather more concerned over absolute control over the final painting or image for that matter. Part of this could well be because our lives are increasingly governed by the need to generate income, make a name for ourself rather than just seek pleasure or pure unadulterated photographic experimentation.<br>

My boss is a huge admirer of toy cameras and loves his Holga and accessories. He sees himself as a big child when it comes to lomography. I finally discovered old folders and decided that the uncoated or early coated look of the Zeiss glass allowed me to experiment just the way I wanted to go. I would not get into lomography as I feel that my sense of adventure is suited to the early folders than leaving it all to chance.</p>

[riz]

<p>Starvy,</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Part of this could well be because our lives are increasingly governed by the need to generate income, make a name for ourself rather than just seek pleasure or pure unadulterated photographic experimentation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very well said and I fully agree with you on this.</p>

<p>Now, with Photoshop seems everyone is a 'great' photographer :)</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Just stay away from the "official" Lomography company, they make their money selling old Russian equipment and expired film at astonishing markups. If you want to have some fun, try to score an inexpensive TLR and some inexpensive film from Ebay or one of the major web sites, and go forth and shoot from the hip.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>i like it. i dont shoot wiht one anymore, i use a nice little app call hipstamic on my Iphone 4 and i enjoy it. art / fine art? i dont care... its fun, and i like the result ; )</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Rizwan, you must be a very non-discriminating viewer. You keep saying photoshop makes photographers great. :) Most photos I see, whether or not processed with photoshop, are pretty average. If you think either most photoshopped photos or most non-photoshopped photos are great, you need to become more critical and discerning. Consider that a tool isn't great for art, it's the USE of a tool that will determine it's applicability to art or not.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Lomography buys into the theory that if an image is technically mediocre (or even bad), or taken with a "non-mainstream" camera then it must be art. Same goes for Holga and other "toy" cameras. Same even goes for pinhole cameras.</p>

<p>This is a con. If it's art, it's art. If it's bad it's just bad. Just because it's bad or blurred or vignetted or printed with tattered borders it doesn't make it art. Such an image might be art, but it usually isn't. Unless of course you hold the opinion that anything and everything is art, in which case what you shoot and what you shoot it with hardly matters.</p>

[jgalyon]

<blockquote>

<p>art / fine art? i dont care... its fun, and i like the result ; )</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm with Patrick on this one. No offense to anyone...but the ageless, endless philosophical discussions about "what is art?"...bore the living hell out of me. Like Patrick... if it's fun and I like the result...I don't care. Doesn't mean that others shouldn't care...just that <em>I</em> don't care.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Lomo is like the fanny pack. Both are mainstream again. It's too late to embrace them ironically. And hating them is so 15 minutes ago.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>Lomo is like the fanny pack. Both are mainstream again. It's too late to embrace them ironically. And hating them is so 15 minutes ago.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nice Lex! That made me chuckle. Particularly after seeing a WSJ article the other week about how the fanny pack was showing up on haute couture runways.</p>

[bj_larsson]

<p>I shoot with a Holga (sometimes) and it's just fun.</p>

<p>Extra benefit? When the weather is horrible or there is a real chance something will get damaged or stolen, replacing a $29.95 Holga isn't going to break the bank.</p>

<p>Taking a crappy photo with a Holga doesn't make it magically better. But if using a lomo camera improves your visualization of what you want to achieve and helps you to think about the shot, the look and feel you want, it can have some great results... for very little money :)</p>

[bojepsen1]

<p>Seems pretty interesting to me, this whole lomography-bit, but like Patrick I would recommend the hipstamatic app for iPhone. It's quite fun :-)</p>

[vanessa_resler]

<p>After reading the Ansel Adams autobiography this week I've started wondering if the lomography trend is a sort of return to pictorialism.<br>

I use a Holga sometimes. But I wouldn't want to call using it "lomo" or buy anything from the Lomography company. Too hipster-y for my taste. And now that I've gone back to using a darkroom I'm not sure I would want to try to print a Holga negative. I think Photoshop is almost required to clean up and adjust Holga negatives. Or at least, the ones I seem to end up with.</p>

[astral]

<p>I like anything that helps me 'see' things in a different way, or which inspires and interests me. The question of what constitutes art is, to me, somewhat immaterial. However, very little of what is pedalled specifically as "Lomography" inspires or interests me, and I do tend to subscribe to the views in this link: <a href="http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/lomography/">http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/lomography/</a></p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>I think the main reason some "fine art" photographers use Lomo etc is to step away (AWAY) from the demands for optical excellence (which are sold to us as important values), allowing them to deal more with ideas and simple images. In other words, I think some of them are using it to free themselves from the BS that's connected with SLR/DSLR high-detail-obsession. </p>

<p> My impression is that some of them are much better printers than are most SLR/DSLR shooters, and the print is where the important action is for some of us (rather than Flickr, for example). Me, I like traditional high-resolution technique (Nikon scan Canon prime film, DSLR), but I don't think Lomo etc is an inferior kind of work, just different. One good thing about Lomo folks is that they don't seem to waste much time photographing bugs, kittykats, and sunsets.</p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>How you find lomography? And do you pursue that? For me it seems great for fine art photography.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I find it an amusing an entertaining process. One of many amusing processes and techniques I enjoy applying in different ways, and in different combinations to produce artifacts. One of it's attributes is low resolution. This is a useful technique for shifting attention from literal to figurative values in say, color, form or line. Some people are thrilled to do this kind of attention transformation work in softwares like Photoshop. I find that the mechanical means are more risky, more unpredictable, and more intimately direct, and thus more spontaneously amusing than dragging a mouse around in the abstract digital universe.<br>

When I paint, I use a huge variety of brushes (or "items to wipe color on surface") and many kinds of media. I imitate this open experimental process with photographic play as well by using any kind of camera/lens tool that can produce a variety of results. Of course, if one's aim is merely photo documentation, you take another path. But assuming you are using reality as nothing more than primary feed stock into a multi-stage creative process, the more tools (e.g. brushes) you have, the more you can experiment.<br>

Your worst enemy is the sound of others discounting your techniques, dreams or vision. Often, there is "industrial pressure" to sell (of course!) very high priced instruments or tools to the artist. Well, of course! But that desire for commercial consumption of expensive goods (cameras and lenses with high precision) is not relevant to the process of any artist, it is a secondary effect of the consumer culture. You should feel free to utterly ignore it as you find tools and techniques that you can use expressively. Painting with light, can be as unstructured, informal, risky and whimsical as you desire, and leaky low resolution camera boxes might be one path to that end. Enjoy and laugh!</p>