| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/13/2004 10:24:26 PM · #1 |
So, you asked for examples: I posted a couple to my mail art blog, The Sideshowpost. I took the top one driving through Iowa Fourth of July weekend and the one of my bear cub a few days before. Lest any of you think I can't make a real photograph, here.
Sideshowmom |
|
|
|
07/11/2004 02:44:31 PM · #2 |
| Opposed to phonograpy I would prefer we used mobography is using a celly lol.. |
|
|
|
07/11/2004 02:38:49 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Photography subjects do not have to be seen through a viewfinder to be artistic. After all when taking a 'lomograph' one knows where the subject is, what conditions surround it and what kind of result may be delivered. The only unknown is exactly what the shot will look like.
Perhaps we should have a mini challenge here using mobile phones - titled 'Phonography' and see how interesting a shot from the hip can be. Not the same as a Lomo maybe but equally challenging for the technology.
|
Cool idea, Jon! It is a rather similar approach. I don't even have a wireless phone, let alone one with a camera. :-(
I left comments on your shots. |
|
|
|
07/11/2004 02:28:28 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Photography subjects do not have to be seen through a viewfinder to be artistic. After all when taking a 'lomograph' one knows where the subject is, what conditions surround it and what kind of result may be delivered. The only unknown is exactly what the shot will look like. |
A lot of my pictures are taken without using the viewfinder/LCD. One of my top-rated shots  was taken like this.
I had a clear idea of what I wanted it to look like, just not if I'd get it on any particular frame. I find it's a combination of skill and luck to shoot that way ... I usually have a good idea of the composition and exposure I want, I just don't always capture it.
I have found that my accuracy in framing shots is pretty good for things within about fifteen degrees (vertically) of the horizon, but my aim gets progressively worse as the subject approaches the zenith. |
|
|
|
07/11/2004 01:42:36 PM · #5 |
You know, photography is not all about perfect focus, dof and composition. It's about capturing the way light reflects off an object at a given instance. Lomography may be 'technically' wrong, but sometimes it's the wrong in things that make it interesting and make it expressive. That's my thinking behind Lomography.
Lee
|
|
|
|
07/11/2004 10:33:26 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Babygirl:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
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! |
yep im a teen and proud 2 b lol just wanted to say hi n as soon as i take a picture worth looking at yall will see em lol:) |
Uhoh I am in trouble! I think I am going to get her dad to put her on restrictions from this site or any other photography sites, cant have her outdoing me now can I, (hehehe) :) kidding :) everyone already does better then me, I know I need to learn some more...Hey want to babysitt and fill me in on some new tips?
I cant believe I let her join this site.
I caught her up all night geez another DPC addict in the family.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2004 07:15:29 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
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! |
yep im a teen and proud 2 b lol just wanted to say hi n as soon as i take a picture worth looking at yall will see em lol:) |
|
|
|
07/11/2004 04:32:44 AM · #8 |
Photography subjects do not have to be seen through a viewfinder to be artistic. After all when taking a 'lomograph' one knows where the subject is, what conditions surround it and what kind of result may be delivered. The only unknown is exactly what the shot will look like.
Perhaps we should have a mini challenge here using mobile phones - titled 'Phonography' and see how interesting a shot from the hip can be. Not the same as a Lomo maybe but equally challenging for the technology.
Here are two taken with my Nokia 6230!
  |
|
|
|
07/11/2004 02:16:23 AM · #9 |
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.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2004 01:42:19 AM · #10 |
| 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 01:33:25 AM · #11 |
| 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. |
|
|
|
07/10/2004 11:44:47 PM · #12 |
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. |
|
|
|
07/08/2004 01:55:06 AM · #13 |
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
|
|
|
|
07/08/2004 01:07:53 AM · #14 |
That is a cool experiment! Thanks for sharing the link.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2004 10:29:18 PM · #15 |
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. |
|
|
|
07/07/2004 10:24:06 PM · #16 |
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 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 09:25:13 PM · #18 |
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 09:11:10 PM · #19 |
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 08:51:42 PM · #20 |
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 08:06:01 PM · #21 |
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 06:39:16 PM · #22 |
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 04:03:36 PM · #23 |
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 03:50:48 PM · #24 |
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 02:34:52 PM · #25 |
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!
|
|
