What Does "Lomo" Mean?

[mfophotos]

<p>One might not like the Lomography hype, but I think any company that encourages the use of film cameras should be congratulated. Young folks WANT to learn about shooting film. Eventually, some of them will "get it" and move on to better technique, etc. But it's really a movement against instant perfection -- and digital has no soul. Believe what you want, but Lomography has been around 20 years, and that says something. This is about having FUN with your camera. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>digital has no soul</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Film doesn't either. Only the photographer can have soul. Really, this kind of nonsense hurts newcomers to photography, it should be about helping people with their photographs regardless of their medium. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is about having FUN with your camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />That should happen with any camera, including phone cameras.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>except in the UK where the term hipster apparently refers to some sort of trousers<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Over here it refers to both the trousers and the meaning you know of. Some hipsters even wear hipster trousers (I might be making up that last bit).</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Urban Outfitters is selling the Lomo camera and film lineup. Their demographic is younger in general, not just hipsters. Fine by me, whatever works is cool.</p>

<p>The marketing is reminiscent of Kodak's 1890s marketing strategy, which was so effective "Kodak" became synonymous with "snapshooters". Those 1890s Kodak ads heavily targeted women, and were remarkably restrained and free of condescending sexism. The Chicago Exposition (World's Fair) tried to ban or limit the use of "Kodaks", in favor of designated photographers providing prints and postcards. An elderly Frank James posted a sign on the fence entrance to his ranch banning "Kodaks". James had learned a lesson from his mercenary mom, Zerelda, who conned visitors into giving her photos, which she'd autograph and then resell to the next visitors.</p>

<p>The more things change...</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Like Lex said:

 

http://www.legendsofamerica.com/photos-missouri/FrankJamesAtFarm-500.jpg

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Hmmm... now that I look at that photo again, apparently Frank James was either threatening or promising bare Kodaks, not sure which. Now I wonder whether those <a href="http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/an-interview-with-early-kodak-advertising-collector-martha-cooper/">fetching models for Kodak ads</a> were "bared" as well, from or *on* the James ranch.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Actually it screams "over priced junk." Buy a used camera and walk away with a flexible tool you can use for a lifetime.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>DLSRs all have an easy to select auto mode. When noobs ask me for advice I say start on full auto and commit to learning one new mode every few months. If you ever get flustered and have to take a shot just go back to your happy place, full auto. Your problem is you are approaching the camera manual like you are reading <em>War and Peace</em>. I advise people against that. Do not approach it in a linear fashion. Read the quick start guide and then commit to learning one feature at a time. Pick what interests you. Pick something at random. But whatever you do don't just slog though the manual. Download the PDF of the manual onto your smartphone or tablet. If you have an issue use the index and hone in on the specific topic that is giving you an issue. Ignore the rest of the stuff.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>John, I wonder how many jobs there are that you can approach with that attitude. This website is proof positive that if you want to learn about photography there are plenty of resources on the web for self directed learning and study. All you have to do is put in the effort. I mean who picks up a tool every day and doesn't even bother to learn the basics? She could take a one week course on photography and improve her keeper rate dramatically.</p>

<p>The other thing is we are photographers. We are not painting the roof of the Sistine Chapel. Anyone with half a brain that can hold a camera steady and turn the focusing ring can take great shots. All you have to do is push the shutter button enough times in various settings and you will eventually be able to cobble together an edited portfolio of 10 good to great shots. I've had more than one veteran member on this forum DEMAND to see my portfolio because they happen to disagree with me about one topic or another. I guess the premise is if you can post five small images on the internet after YEARS of shooting and they look good you know everything about photography.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<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, <strong>they just assume that bad pictures are what film is all about</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's my problem with the lomography business. There are enough lies about film out there. No need to perpetuate and add to them.</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>Lomography is not new. Lomography, although not named that, existed about 90-100 years ago because photographers of that time felt they were in competition with painters and the general perception of the public was that "soft" photos were the best that cameras could produce but, eventually, photography took a step towards sharp photo results when they started groups like the F64 club and everything in the photographic world suddenly shifted to razor sharp results.</p>

<p>You may not realize it but the Lomo folk are making up a very big chunk of film sales. Encourage them if you want to continue having 120 film around.</p>

<p>The original "Lomo"/"Diana" camera? Try a tiny Ansco 127 box camera. I think it was called the Dollar camera. Horrible results especially at the edges. You will love it.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>You may not realize it but the Lomo folk are making up a very big chunk of film sales.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why wouldn't I realize that? It has been stated multiple times in this thread by people who support, hate and are ambivalent about lomography. Very few things in life are all good or all bad. I think the gripe that a lot of people have with lomography particularly the business side of it is it is perpetuating myths about film photography. The other problem is will the current uptick in interest in lomography just be a passing fad? And if so and the bulk of the hipsters abandon film will the film world be left in even worse condition? I would much rather have fewer people that have some clue what they are doing stick around and be film users for life than have a rush of hipsters come in and get bored with over used hackish gimmicks used ad nauseam. There is a reason vanilla is the most popular flavor of ice cream... and probably always will be.</p>

<p>There is something very nice about a properly exposed accurately color balanced appropriately sharp (subject sharp, bokeh everywhere else) image that is timeless. Sometimes it is just nice to frame up a subject and snap. Let the composition and subject matter do the talking. I don't beat my DSLR photographs to death in photoshop. I don't make up for boring subject matter and composition with tons of effects. Judicious use of effects here and there can be very nice. But to say every single image I'm going to take will have this light leak and this blur just gets nauseating after awhile. Abuse of effects has a long history in film and digital.</p>

[nicholas_rapak]

<p>I don't think that Lomography is a reaction to the complexity of digital cameras, it's a reaction to the perfection and uniformity of digital cameras. With every digital camera, you can turn it on, spin the dial (if it has one) to "P", and get a well-exposed in-focus picture. To some, it seems like the art of photography is slowly being removed from the science of photography. Lomography is the antithesis of that. Each image is imperfect in its own way; be it flared shutters or light leaks, you can tell that each image is your own creation. Personally, I don't like the results, but I understand why some people do.</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>I think of it this way.</p>

<p>I have a Nikon with autofocus and matrix 3D metering and speeds to 1/8000th and motor drive and interchangeable lenses and apertures to F1.4</p>

<p>Then I have lots of what could be termed "box" cameras. They don't use batteries, have a single spring to drive the shutter providing a 1/50 speed and an aperture of F11 and only manual film advance.</p>

<p>But you know what? I get good photos from both so, maybe, the Nikon is overdone.</p>