| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/07/2004 01:14:03 AM · #1 |
I've been thinking: does anyone here practice lomography? The Lomo certainly has it's own unique look (perhaps a bit golden, burned at the edges?), but I'm interested in seeing your best lomo work--even if you don't have a Lomo camera!
You can read here the 10 rules of Lomography.
...and is Lomography 'good' photography?
Message edited by author 2004-07-07 01:14:55.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 01:25:55 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by dsidwell:
...and is Lomography 'good' photography? |
Yes.
“There's no one way to approach art; there's no right way. So long as you apply yourself with honesty and create from the heart, the end result is truthful. It might not be good, per se, but it still has worth. And I think that goes for any creative endeavor.”
- Charles de Lint, in Memory and Dream
I have not yet played with lomo photography... I had never read the "rules" so I never understood the concept. I should try it... I think it would be fun!
Of course, it does seem P&S cameras are mose conducive to lomo.
-Terry
Message edited by author 2004-07-07 01:27:14.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 01:41:35 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by dsidwell:
I've been thinking: does anyone here practice lomography? The Lomo certainly has it's own unique look (perhaps a bit golden, burned at the edges?), but I'm interested in seeing your best lomo work--even if you don't have a Lomo camera!
You can read here the 10 rules of Lomography.
...and is Lomography 'good' photography? |
Well, now that I read what it is, I'd say many (most?) of the frames I take fall into this category ... I don't follow Rule #5 very well (get in the subject's face), and I don't stick my head in a tub of icewater before I take pictures! |
|
|
|
07/07/2004 01:43:09 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
and I don't stick my head in a tub of icewater before I take pictures! |
I have to wonder whether that advice is to help us take better pictures, or to prevent us from getting swelled heads?
-Terry
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 02:09:12 AM · #5 |
Why the name lomography, is there any special about that name?
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 02:17:06 AM · #6 |
found this, guess that answers my question.
//www.shift.com/content/web/450/1.html
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 06:51:53 AM · #7 |
| The lomo style of shooting is what I used to do with my old P8. Does it still classify as "lomo" if done with a digital camera?.. or is it strictly film w/a lomo camera? |
|
|
|
07/07/2004 01:10:01 PM · #8 |
I think that lomography can be done with any camera, though the Soviet Lomo camera has a special look and feel to the images. I wonder if there's an action in Photoshop to come up with the Lomo look.
The Lomo is a cheap camera, and I don't think it has gone digital yet. There are several on ebay for less than $100.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 02:34:52 PM · #9 |
Lomo is not a look, so much as a style of photography, like macro or portrait are different styles. It's all in the composition and how the shot was taken, therefore I think an action in photoshop would not be applicable.
As for the Lomo camera's, the reason the Lomo can have an advantage over other camera's is how unpredictable it can be. With no metering, and pretty unreliable focus, it's completely unpredictable! It does however utilize some fantastic glass, which can produce some fantastic images! This doesn't however mean you can't use other camera's, but I would stick to film instead of digital. I have a bunch of lomo friends who just use disposable cameras.
If your interested in buying a lomo you can find them on eBay no problem. I bought one for $10 from Russia, and it's a load of fun, but you can get even more expensive ones. Have a look at the different type of lomo's, some of the funnest ones are the four lens types, on one exposure it has four seperate frames, which can result in some interesting photography!
Check out Lomography.com, everything you need to know if right there.
Lee
P.S. Lomography is not technically 'good' photography, but thats not the point of it. It is however artistically very appealing! Not too mention it does wonders for your regular photography!
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 03:50:48 PM · #10 |
I'm intrigued by what I see on the link that was provided. I have only just heard of lomo cameras. I was chatting with a friendly aquaintance at a barbecue a few months back and he had one with him. I think I'll look into this for my daughter. She has the type of style and temperment that she would love this. I just put (very expensive) batteries into an Olympus POS that we found (in the trash, I think). My mom has an identical model and it works pretty great. I like the look of the lomo photos and I think she would also.
After that chat with my friend, I looked up lomo cameras and heard they are easy to drop and break. Still, I'm going to go check it out. |
|
|
|
07/07/2004 04:03:36 PM · #11 |
The Olympus POS is a fun camera, and I wouldn't be surprised if it worked out well for lomography!
I would have to disagree with your friend about Lomo's breaking easily, one of the reasons they are used the way they are is because they are quite rugged (and cheap). I dropped mine from a two story window the other day, and it was just fine! I suppose it matters which type of Lomo it is.
How old is your daughter?
Lee
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 06:39:16 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Spanish_Grease:
Lomo is not a look, so much as a style of photography, like macro or portrait are different styles. It's all in the composition and how the shot was taken, therefore I think an action in photoshop would not be applicable. |
I think dsidwill was referring not to the technique, but the saturation and color quality of lomo photography. I was also wondering this and I think I ran into another thread yesterday that questioned any photoshop actions or filters to achieve the "film look" on digital. I'm very interested in this myself.
Message edited by author 2004-07-07 18:39:58. |
|
|
|
07/07/2004 08:06:01 PM · #13 |
After reading this thread, it triggered off an item in my brain that hadn't fired... my HP PhotoSmart is on the fritz after a bad encounter with some condensation, and I'm waiting for a replacement. My hands have been itching without a camera to use...
So, I went online and dug up some information from last year on a custom cable and software to read images off of the Dakota Digital one-time-use digital cameras sold at Ritz and Wolf Camera outlets.
So, this afternoon, I bought an $11 camera, a $5 cable, and some heat-shrink tubing, and I've begun my foray into digilomography.
Only problem so far is that the camera doesn't generate EXIF data, so I'd be hard pressed to use any of my shots in dpchallenges.
On the plus side, this camera has some odd, but cool optics. Similarly, the read speed on the CCD is slow enough that high-speed shots get skewed sideways. Meheheh.
I think I'm going to upload some of this stuff to a page.
/Andrew
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 08:51:42 PM · #14 |
IMO, without the catchy title and fad aspect, anybody would generally look at a "lomograph" and consider it a bad snapshot. Somebody brought up lomography maybe 6 months ago (don't remember if it was here or another forum), and I seem to recall that the "official" lomo site was pretty adamant that "lomography" required a real lomo camera, which required paying a bit of an inflated price to the official lomo company (not the original Soviet company, but the company somewhere in Europe that now licenses the cameras, the name, the fad, etc.). It just came off to me like another Cabbage Patch/Beanie Baby/Tickle-me-Elmo marketting fad. But if you enjoy it, more power to you...
Message edited by author 2004-07-07 20:52:15. |
|
|
|
07/07/2004 09:11:10 PM · #15 |
Scott --
Agreed, on most points, but I'll say that all forms of "fad" photography have a certain niche appeal to some (myself included). This includes lomo (and its derivatives), camera obscura (and other pinhole methods), moblogs, and all sorts of other schemes.
I think that the idea of eschewing complex, configurable equipment for the lowest common denominator, and letting the shot happen versus composing it exactly as you envision it, carries a certain appeal. There's a simplicity to "capturing moments" with a piece of equipment that imparts a particular quirkiness to the output that seems very close to the most basic ideas of subject (whether it be living, texture, landscape, still life) and natural order (versus what can often be strained composition).
/Andrew
(FWIW, I've uploaded a pile of shots I took tonight out and about getting dinner at my local KFC... used the Dakota Digital $11 "one-time-use" digicam...)
Strange.Net: Dakography I
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 09:25:13 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Spanish_Grease:
The Olympus POS is a fun camera, and I wouldn't be surprised if it worked out well for lomography!
I would have to disagree with your friend about Lomo's breaking easily, one of the reasons they are used the way they are is because they are quite rugged (and cheap). I dropped mine from a two story window the other day, and it was just fine! I suppose it matters which type of Lomo it is.
How old is your daughter?
Lee |
I didn't say my friend said they broke easily. I said after looking them up I read more than a few comments from people who dropped the camera once and it broke. I think these were reviews on Amazon. It probably does matter what kind it is. This wouldn't stop me from getting one if I wanted to try it. It was just something that stood out in the little bit of reading I did.
My daughter is 14.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 09:39:08 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
IMO, without the catchy title and fad aspect, anybody would generally look at a "lomograph" and consider it a bad snapshot. Somebody brought up lomography maybe 6 months ago (don't remember if it was here or another forum), and I seem to recall that the "official" lomo site was pretty adamant that "lomography" required a real lomo camera, which required paying a bit of an inflated price to the official lomo company (not the original Soviet company, but the company somewhere in Europe that now licenses the cameras, the name, the fad, etc.). It just came off to me like another Cabbage Patch/Beanie Baby/Tickle-me-Elmo marketting fad. But if you enjoy it, more power to you... |
I disagree entirely with what Scott says but then I'm a fan of Polaroid snap-shots, pinhole phtography, and found photographs (which are often 'bad' snapshots). An image doesn't have to be technically perfect to appeal to me.
Originally posted by Kha0S:
Scott --
Agreed, on most points, but I'll say that all forms of "fad" photography have a certain niche appeal to some (myself included). This includes lomo (and its derivatives), camera obscura (and other pinhole methods), moblogs, and all sorts of other schemes.
I think that the idea of eschewing complex, configurable equipment for the lowest common denominator, and letting the shot happen versus composing it exactly as you envision it, carries a certain appeal. There's a simplicity to "capturing moments" with a piece of equipment that imparts a particular quirkiness to the output that seems very close to the most basic ideas of subject (whether it be living, texture, landscape, still life) and natural order (versus what can often be strained composition).
/Andrew
(FWIW, I've uploaded a pile of shots I took tonight out and about getting dinner at my local KFC... used the Dakota Digital $11 "one-time-use" digicam...)
Strange.Net: Dakography I |
I agree with the spirit of your argument. I wouldn't have referred to pinhole photography or Camera Obscura
as fads since pinhole photography has been around for over a century and camera obscura has been around for milennia.
I think the trick with lomography is choosing the shots that truly evoke some kind of expression or moment from those that just look like technical mistakes. I could look through piles of anonymous old photographs and maybe only come up with three or four that truly struck me as special in some way. I like the idea of leaving a certain amount to chance and seeing what emerges.
I think attempting to create the look of lomo photograph in PS is rather missing the point. The appeal seems to be the chancy occurrances that arise from the quirkiness of the camera's design. |
|
|
|
07/07/2004 10:24:06 PM · #18 |
Well, I was intrigued enough that I looked up 'lomo' on eBay and wound up buying a Smena-8M for $13 plus $12 shipping. I'll let you know in a couple of weeks if it was $25 well spent. :-D
That's two camera purchases in one day. |
|
|
|
07/07/2004 10:29:18 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
I wouldn't have referred to pinhole photography or Camera Obscura
as fads since pinhole photography has been around for over a century and camera obscura has been around for milennia. |
Yeah ... millennia ...
What type film do these things use, anyway?
Message edited by author 2004-07-07 22:29:42. |
|
|
|
07/08/2004 01:07:53 AM · #20 |
That is a cool experiment! Thanks for sharing the link.
|
|
|
|
07/08/2004 01:55:06 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Originally posted by Spanish_Grease:
The Olympus POS is a fun camera, and I wouldn't be surprised if it worked out well for lomography!
I would have to disagree with your friend about Lomo's breaking easily, one of the reasons they are used the way they are is because they are quite rugged (and cheap). I dropped mine from a two story window the other day, and it was just fine! I suppose it matters which type of Lomo it is.
How old is your daughter?
Lee |
I didn't say my friend said they broke easily. I said after looking them up I read more than a few comments from people who dropped the camera once and it broke. I think these were reviews on Amazon. It probably does matter what kind it is. This wouldn't stop me from getting one if I wanted to try it. It was just something that stood out in the little bit of reading I did.
My daughter is 14. |
I'm sure your daughter would love lomography, I started when I was about that age, and I haven't really stopped since!
Lee
|
|
|
|
07/10/2004 11:44:47 PM · #22 |
I have a LOMO!!! I bought it after reading an article in Popular Photography magazine in 2000 when my daughter was a few months old and it's my favorite camera (until my husband buys me my Nikon for my birthday). I shoot from the hip about 40% of the time and don't usually care about the outcome and get some cool results that can't be PSd. It IS an attitude. I also do Mail Art. After 3 semesters of photography classes, all three of Ansel Adams books on shooting, developing and printing, and lots of art shows, I needed to step back and get out of the zone system for a bit ;-) It gave me the freedom of just doing it to see what it is I want to do in photography. Don't get me wrong, I still lug my manual slr and several lenses into the woods to do some "serious" shooting once in a while, but my muse leads me in unexpected directions.
DISCLAIMER: I don't have a digital camera YET. My husband is getting me a Nikon Coolpix 4300 for my birthday before the $50 rebate expires. I do have Photoshop and scan nearly all of my photographs now, though. |
|
|
|
07/11/2004 01:33:25 AM · #23 |
| To me it just appears to be photography for people who have no skills. lol That's just me but by the looks of the shop on the lomography site that was linked in the first post I'm forced to that conclusion. |
|
|
|
07/11/2004 01:42:19 AM · #24 |
| i looked at the site its really interesting its definitely something i would look forward to doing in the future! it looks really fun! |
|
|
|
07/11/2004 02:16:23 AM · #25 |
why not just set your camera to smallest size and resolution, turn off everything (sharpening, etc.) and leave it in manual focus mode....taaaadddaaaaaaa. Lomography! I agree with Andrew, but again, an opinion.
Hey, Babygirl. I nu u had 2ba teenager with da comments in WEBONICS. LOL Keep up ur lernin. w8 2 c ur pix!
Message edited by author 2004-07-11 02:19:46.
|
|
