DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Is lomography really an art form?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 15 of 15, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/10/2010 12:17:55 AM · #1
I mean it's just like a crapshoot really, no?
06/10/2010 12:21:36 AM · #2
Yes to both of your statements. It is a crapshoot to a large extent. However, there is also the aspect of knowing what subjects and light are likely to respond nicely to it. (Just like any other genre of photography) Besides, taking photos of anything that is not under controlled studio conditions is a bit of a crapshoot, imo.
06/10/2010 12:27:27 AM · #3
But it seems to me like its just go out and buy either a $20 camera or one of our special made crap camera for $200 and then go take pictures of uninteresting things and post em up on flickr so everyone knows that you are an artist. I guess you could be an artist but of what measure?
06/10/2010 12:59:40 AM · #4
The $200 crap camera is not needed for the genre. I have a $3 crap camera from a thrift shop and another one that cost 69 cents (and is mechanically backwards, what a great buy!)
Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_865065.jpg Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_864092.jpg

I don't see that taking an interesting and compelling photo with one of these is any different in artistic value than taking an interesting and compelling shot with an expensive digital camera. You can shoot crap with both cameras.
06/10/2010 01:09:39 AM · #5
Originally posted by jvaughn94:

Is lomography really an art form?


Some might suggest digital photography is not an art form whereas film photography is.

If a shot moves you or causes you to stop and look, why should the medium used matter at all?
06/10/2010 01:11:08 AM · #6
Lomography is, for the most part, a commercial enterprise. They're making cheap cameras and putting huge pricetags on them. I'd be lying if I said some of what they're producing doesn't interest me. But crap is crap. I've gotten pleasing lomographic effects with five dollar cameras from Goodwill. If you want good bokeh, you pay mountains of money for a good lens. But a light leak is a light leak, and one plastic meniscus lens is as good as another. In my opinion.

This all comes back to the fact that cameras don't make great pictures, people do. Lomography likes to employ this trickery in their marketing. Look what you can do! Never mind that most of the images they flash around on their website are taken by professional photographers.
06/10/2010 10:40:59 AM · #7
I saw this earlier and I think it looks like a lot of fun....
One of 2 Billion Lomo Sites
06/10/2010 12:06:52 PM · #8
I've always thought of lomography as a type of photography where the unique characteristics of the instrument (camera) substitutes for much of the creativity that usually comes from the person (the so-called "photographer"). Sometimes I find that it's an easy cop-out that gets passed off as creativity.

Kind of like grunge "a-la-cheap".
06/10/2010 12:23:06 PM · #9
Originally posted by Beagleboy:

I've always thought of lomography as a type of photography where the unique characteristics of the instrument (camera) substitutes for much of the creativity that usually comes from the person (the so-called "photographer"). Sometimes I find that it's an easy cop-out that gets passed off as creativity.


You could say the same thing about using any of the software tools that are available these days. Is using a plugin that gives a cool treatment a substitute for being creative? Or is knowing how to best use that tool part the creative process? Perhaps getting a pleasing photo with a crappy camera is harder and more creative?
06/10/2010 12:37:55 PM · #10
I'm not saying someone couldn't take a very good photo. But it just sounds like the official lomography is a good business idea. Its pretty much saying hey it doesn't matter which camera you use, you can always take good pictures with any camera. Well with an SLR I suspect you have a much higher Keep to Crap ratio.
06/10/2010 12:42:13 PM · #11
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Originally posted by Beagleboy:

I've always thought of lomography as a type of photography where the unique characteristics of the instrument (camera) substitutes for much of the creativity that usually comes from the person (the so-called "photographer"). Sometimes I find that it's an easy cop-out that gets passed off as creativity.


You could say the same thing about using any of the software tools that are available these days. Is using a plugin that gives a cool treatment a substitute for being creative? Or is knowing how to best use that tool part the creative process? Perhaps getting a pleasing photo with a crappy camera is harder and more creative?


This hurt Krak's brain. So much simpler to just paint on cavewall.
06/10/2010 12:48:56 PM · #12
Absolute hilarity...we get our panties all in a bunch when because someone told us our pic was good because of our thousand dollar camera! Now, our pic is good only because of a twenty dollar camera!

Remember everybody...it's not the photographer, it's the camera! Sheez-ma-neez!
06/10/2010 01:08:13 PM · #13
I don't care much about the camera, It's just how you take a picture. Mindless snapping of random things is like throwing paint on a canvas. Yeah it might resemble something and art critiques might be like ooooo and ahhh. But in the end its just a bunch of paint. Im guessing lomographers keep about 1% of the photos they take. I understand that art is about expressing yourself but what does a random picture of a shoe express?

Message edited by author 2010-06-10 13:08:42.
06/10/2010 01:20:50 PM · #14
Originally posted by jvaughn94:

I don't care much about the camera, It's just how you take a picture. Mindless snapping of random things is like throwing paint on a canvas. Yeah it might resemble something and art critiques might be like ooooo and ahhh. But in the end its just a bunch of paint. Im guessing lomographers keep about 1% of the photos they take. I understand that art is about expressing yourself but what does a random picture of a shoe express?


Art is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I find the process a lot of fun. Its part skill and part luck. Even your duds have some meaning. I think its the time and effort that goes into making the image that makes the difference. Keep in mind also that not every genre of photography has universal appeal. Some people don't like abstracts for example.
06/10/2010 01:26:23 PM · #15
It really amazes that me anyone would attempt to single out lomographers for such a thing. When there is exponentially more mindless snapping happening with digital cams, talk about throwing paint!

Originally posted by jvaughn94:

I don't care much about the camera, It's just how you take a picture. Mindless snapping of random things is like throwing paint on a canvas. Yeah it might resemble something and art critiques might be like ooooo and ahhh. But in the end its just a bunch of paint. Im guessing lomographers keep about 1% of the photos they take. I understand that art is about expressing yourself but what does a random picture of a shoe express?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/20/2018 01:17:46 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2018 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 11/20/2018 01:17:46 PM EST.