Lomography
- Thread starter dom1610
- Start date
I like lomography, but for me it has to serve a purpose.
I think the main reason people have a problem with the so-called "hipster" approach to lomography is that the so-called "hipsters" tend to glorify the traits of lomographic photography (hyper-saturated colors, light leaks, vignetting, etc.) as artistic in and of themselves, regardless of what you're taking a photo of. It seems to me that just because you took your vacation photos with an unpredictable camera with a plastic lens, that does not necessarily make them art.
I did a photo project with a Holga a couple years ago, and it was about the feeling of nostalgia and melancholy that I experience whenever I wander through an automotive junkyard. The photographs were silver-process darkroom prints, and sepia toned to further communicate that sense of nostalgia. In this case, the fuzzy-focus and vignetting complemented and supported the images, and were not the end in and of themselves. I'll see if I can't dig up a few of the images that I have scanned, and post them here a little later.
So I'll go a little broader, and say it's not the hipsters or even the current "trendyness" of the lomo movement that I dislike, but the masquerading of the lomographic elements as art, when little or no thought went into the making of the photograph otherwise.
</rant>
--miamijuggler
I think the main reason people have a problem with the so-called "hipster" approach to lomography is that the so-called "hipsters" tend to glorify the traits of lomographic photography (hyper-saturated colors, light leaks, vignetting, etc.) as artistic in and of themselves, regardless of what you're taking a photo of. It seems to me that just because you took your vacation photos with an unpredictable camera with a plastic lens, that does not necessarily make them art.
I did a photo project with a Holga a couple years ago, and it was about the feeling of nostalgia and melancholy that I experience whenever I wander through an automotive junkyard. The photographs were silver-process darkroom prints, and sepia toned to further communicate that sense of nostalgia. In this case, the fuzzy-focus and vignetting complemented and supported the images, and were not the end in and of themselves. I'll see if I can't dig up a few of the images that I have scanned, and post them here a little later.
So I'll go a little broader, and say it's not the hipsters or even the current "trendyness" of the lomo movement that I dislike, but the masquerading of the lomographic elements as art, when little or no thought went into the making of the photograph otherwise.
</rant>
--miamijuggler
Actually the Leica was the original Lomo!
The first Leica, the Ur-Leica, was designed to be an exposure tester for 35mm motion picture film. You could shoot a short roll, have it quickly and easily processed, and know if you exposures were good before you exposed a whole reel of movie stock.
Using it to actually take pictures was a very "Lomography" type idea, back in the day. Now the Leica name is synonymous with quality photography. It's funny.
R
rodeo
Personally, I had never heard of this term before this thread came up and after doing a bit of research on it yesterday (yes, I found the 10 golden rules etc.) I think I'm going to pretend I never heard the term in the first place.
Since this place loves acronyms so much, lets just fill in the blank.
Lomography = RBP or WGARA
Since this place loves acronyms so much, lets just fill in the blank.
Lomography = RBP or WGARA
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread's progress is funny because it makes you think: What is art? What is lomography? Is there a high art/low art dichotomy in photography? And perhaps most important: why is your photo better than mine?
Because really, is it? I thought Andy Warhol settled this argument of substance over style 50 years ago...but then again Andy Warhol was the original hipster.
YMMV.
Raymond
Because really, is it? I thought Andy Warhol settled this argument of substance over style 50 years ago...but then again Andy Warhol was the original hipster.
YMMV.
Raymond
R
rodeo
I myself used to look down upon digital alterations altogether and if a photo didnt come striaght out of the camera, well then it wasn't a photo in my opinion. That was a long time ago though and I certainly have changed my views in this digital world we live in now. I mean, look at what is now capable with things like HDR (High Dynamic Range) where you can take three bracketed photos of the same subject and combine them to capure the best of all three photos into one finished product? Oh there's a fire hydrant in your photo that you don't like? Simple, just "erase" it! The possibilities are just endless today and because of it I just ordered Photoshop CS5 Extended and Lightroom 3 as well. I've come a long way too in my thinking.
As for Lomography, while it's definitely not my cup of tea I guess I can and should accept it as a legit style from those who practice it as a true art form. Of course there is allot of "art" that I don't like and that's OK though. Not everyone 'see's eye to eye on Art, or anything else for that matter.
As for Lomography, while it's definitely not my cup of tea I guess I can and should accept it as a legit style from those who practice it as a true art form. Of course there is allot of "art" that I don't like and that's OK though. Not everyone 'see's eye to eye on Art, or anything else for that matter.
Andy Warhol said the perfect photo is in focus and of a famous person... thats not very lomographic now is it. (its also one of the only times he was wrong).
I have mixed opinions on lomography, but overall like it. Yes they are quite expensive for mostly plastic cameras, but on the other hand they are one of the only companies out there actively selling and promoting film.
Here's a shot I took with the Lomography Lubitel 166+. Cross processed film shot with a rainbow filter I printed out.
Here's a shot I took with the Lomography Lubitel 166+. Cross processed film shot with a rainbow filter I printed out.
Hi everybody,
I don't know what lomography is all about these days, but I did buy a "genuine" lomo (LCA) back in the eighties and loved it.
I guess I paid about 30$ for it - brand spanking new.
It was not expensive, it was compact (remember, this was 135 film days!!) and it was really fine for taking shots at parties without flash even if the lights were low:=)
I used it as a " always ready" camera for several years, never had a problem with it, but of course the quality of the results was "variable" :=)
The lens does have distortion and vignetting, BUT it was relatively fast (1:2.8) and the camera had no limit on how long the shutter would remain open in auto mode - so it was possible to try shots that many other compact cameras had no chance to make.
It even survived a drop from the top of my car while driving (don't ask...)
so I think the LCA was a great design (although with a lot of compromise)
br,
T°M
I don't know what lomography is all about these days, but I did buy a "genuine" lomo (LCA) back in the eighties and loved it.
I guess I paid about 30$ for it - brand spanking new.
It was not expensive, it was compact (remember, this was 135 film days!!) and it was really fine for taking shots at parties without flash even if the lights were low:=)
I used it as a " always ready" camera for several years, never had a problem with it, but of course the quality of the results was "variable" :=)
The lens does have distortion and vignetting, BUT it was relatively fast (1:2.8) and the camera had no limit on how long the shutter would remain open in auto mode - so it was possible to try shots that many other compact cameras had no chance to make.
It even survived a drop from the top of my car while driving (don't ask...)
so I think the LCA was a great design (although with a lot of compromise)
br,
T°M
Similar threads
