hello, and welcome to the Lomography based thread (v1)
this thread is about everything LOMO, pictures you took with lomo cameras, what lomo cameras you have, ect., ect.
to clarify, Lomography is spacific type of photography that the picture is take with a lomo camera, which are known for their lo-fi, analog, film pictures.
here's a little history:
[url]http://www.lomography.com/about/timeline#1[/url]
just click on shop and it has all their cameras.
contribution:
that is my uncle jumping while we were Christmas tree hunting.
[img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5170/5259340605_2f692edd17_z.jpg[/img]
this is my cousin violet and her dogs Watson and Talula.
[img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5161/5259944418_60c6739f62_z.jpg[/img]
the bathrooms at my school taken during a dance.
[img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5090/5259938112_7b92c6b3a8_z.jpg[/img]
my dog in the grass on a walk.
[img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5007/5259932386_e92877663d_z.jpg[/img]
this was taken with my lomo fisheye
[img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2682/4368754335_7ca0639184_b.jpg[/img]
this is my flickr:[url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/7451701@N07/[/url]
your turn!
Seems kinda hipster to me, only seen a couple lomo photographs which wouldn't have looked better with a modern camera or normal lens.
I don't mind lomography as much as some of the others here, but it doesn't satisfy me personally.
The only lomo that really interests me is the [url=http://microsites.lomography.com/sprocketrocket/tips]sprocket rocket.[/url]
Oh and there's a dude named [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/lomokev/sets/310825/]lomokev[/url] that actually uses toy cameras pretty well. I have both of his books.
Will definately contribute when I get my film developed.
[editline]6th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Xolo;27232537]Seems kinda hipster to me, only seen a couple lomo photographs which wouldn't have looked better with a modern camera or normal lens.[/QUOTE]
The idea is spontanious shots, taken from the hip usually. Try to enjoy it for what it is.
[QUOTE=bopie;27233377]I don't mind lomography as much as some of the others here, but it doesn't satisfy me personally.
The only lomo that really interests me is the [url=http://microsites.lomography.com/sprocketrocket/tips]sprocket rocket.[/url]
Oh and there's a dude named [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/lomokev/sets/310825/]lomokev[/url] that actually uses toy cameras pretty well. I have both of his books.[/QUOTE]
yeah that and the 360 spinner is intense.
i think calling lomography hipster is fucking stupid, the only camera i would buy i one of the 3d ones though and now fuji make a digital camera that does 3d video and pictures so fuck film, you can also get a 3d picture frame that doesnt require glasses thats pretty cool imo
[QUOTE=waylander;27239930]i think calling lomography hipster is fucking stupid, the only camera i would buy i one of the 3d ones though and now fuji make a digital camera that does 3d video and pictures so fuck film, you can also get a 3d picture frame that doesnt require glasses thats pretty cool imo[/QUOTE]
Your post makes little sense, what does film-based lomography have to do with buying big expensive digital 3D cameras and ordering expensively printed lenticular photos?
Plus, it [i]is[/i] a hipster trend to do lomography, much as it is to split tone the hell out of pictures. Doesn't mean that everyone who lomos is a hipster, but...
wait
"shoot from the [b]hip[/b]"
"[b]hip[/b]ster photography"
uncanny, though I know the term comes from being 'hip' and trendy... or ironically not, whatever the fuck hardcore hipsters these days think they're doing
Let's just deem this thread the hipster-ish version of the creative photography thread. People (including me) tend to bitch when split tones come along, I have a feeling they'd be more than accepted here.
This seems ridiculous to me with the availability of very low priced and extremely high quality 35mm SLR cameras. Using these relatively expensive toy cameras is trying to hard to be cool.
trashy hipster shit be a real photographer and don't be lazy
not being nice about it this time
[QUOTE=labbet;27230996]that is my uncle jumping while we were Christmas tree hunting.
[img_thumb]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5170/5259340605_2f692edd17_z.jpg[/img_thumb]
[/QUOTE]
Ghost trees? :eek:
[QUOTE=Ajacks;27241187]This seems ridiculous to me with the availability of very low priced and extremely high quality 35mm SLR cameras. Using these relatively expensive toy cameras is trying to hard to be cool.[/QUOTE]
i don't buy cameras for "status." i just really like high saturation, and a little surprise when you get the roll developed. part of the price is the book and the film it comes with. the camera itself is $80.
and doesn't toy camera require a plastic lens? and you can't have a 35mm digital camera, expert.
[editline]6th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;27241309]trashy hipster shit be a real photographer and don't be lazy
not being nice about it this time[/QUOTE]
isn't buying a camera where you can take a thousand pictures for free and you know exactly how they are going to come out the lazy one?
[editline]6th January 2011[/editline]
i just want to say first off that i am not opposed to digital photography. film and digital are good in their own ways. digital is perfect for, say, a event, or a photo shoot of a fashion show where tons of photos are taken and you pick out the good ones. film is good for the artsy fartsy ones where you do a long exposure of Christmas lights, or a band playing (bad examples). what i like with film is you try your hardest to get the shot right, because you only have 24.
[editline]6th January 2011[/editline]
to prove i am not "camera-ist" he is a photo i took with a canon EOS rebel XTi
[img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4154/5069810104_5a8f6a10fe_z.jpg[/img]
they are both good, but this thread has lomo as the topic, so lets stick to it.
[editline]6th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=bopie;27233377]I don't mind lomography as much as some of the others here, but it doesn't satisfy me personally.
The only lomo that really interests me is the [url=http://microsites.lomography.com/sprocketrocket/tips]sprocket rocket.[/url]
Oh and there's a dude named [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/lomokev/sets/310825/]lomokev[/url] that actually uses toy cameras pretty well. I have both of his books.[/QUOTE]
i have his book 'hot shots'. very inspiring.
[QUOTE=labbet;27244525]i don't buy cameras for "status." i just really like high saturation, and a little surprise when you get the roll developed. part of the price is the book and the film it comes with. the camera itself is $80.
and doesn't toy camera require a plastic lens? and you can't have a 35mm digital camera, expert.
[/QUOTE]
Hurf durf full frame.
Also why would I want a surprise on a photo I'm trying to do well. If I want shitty saturation that's what doctoring programs are for.
I'll let someone else tell you everything that's wrong with what you just said.
[QUOTE=labbet;27244525]you can't have a 35mm digital camera, expert.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5247/5322568970_d18389b39a.jpg[/img]
I sure do.
Edited: fuck you ijyt-ninja.
Edit 2: OP you have good intentions, but your ignorance is going to through a lot of people off.
[QUOTE=bopie;27245267]I'll let someone else tell you everything that's wrong with what you just said.
[img_thumb]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5247/5322568970_d18389b39a.jpg[/img_thumb]
I sure do.
Edited: fuck you ijyt-ninja.[/QUOTE]
Sorry.
[editline]6th January 2011[/editline]
I just couldn't resist shouting at someone who is wrong on the internet.
[QUOTE=bopie;27245267]I'll let someone else tell you everything that's wrong with what you just said.
[img_thumb]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5247/5322568970_d18389b39a.jpg[/img_thumb]
I sure do.
Edited: fuck you ijyt-ninja.
Edit 2: OP you have good intentions, but your ignorance is going to through a lot of people off.[/QUOTE]
i thought 35mm cameras are called 35mm is because they use 35mm film. since that is a digital camera and does not use 35mm film, wouldn't it just be a SLR camera and left at that?
and thank you for trying to understand.
[editline]6th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=ijyt;27245236]Hurf durf full frame.
Also why would I want a surprise on a photo I'm trying to do well. If I want shitty saturation that's what doctoring programs are for.[/QUOTE]
like i said, if you are trying to do a photo well, like a photo shoot,(AKA: a job) then digital is a better option.
and i love saturation. a bunch.
[QUOTE=labbet;27245469]i thought 35mm cameras are called 35mm is because they use 35mm film. since that is a digital camera and does not use 35mm film, wouldn't it just be a SLR camera and left at that?
and thank you for trying to understand.
[/QUOTE]
Since lomos have shitty build quality with light leakage and poor optics, wouldn't it just be a toy camera and left at that?
[QUOTE=ijyt;27245640]Since lomos have shitty build quality with light leakage and poor optics, wouldn't it just be a toy camera and left at that?[/QUOTE]
i would disagree with you there, i love the way the photos come out. and its a Russian made lens if that's worth anything.
[QUOTE=labbet;27244525]isn't buying a camera where you can take a thousand pictures for free and you know exactly how they are going to come out the lazy one?[/QUOTE]
wow I can't believe you took something that requires actual talent and attempted to make it sound piteous.
go away
I'm going to have to say shame on you DOG-GY. I thought you were better than this. Whether it is 'hipster' or not isn't the point. Just because Abstract/DaDa art is easy to do doesn't mean it's bad nor does it mean it's hipster so I don't really see the point in you arguing. So seriously, this is where it ends. No more arguing. This is a Lomo thread, not an 'I hate lomography (it's for hipsters)' thread.
-snip-
i am an asshole.
-snip-
cus its hip
[QUOTE=onox37;27248445]I'm going to have to say shame on you DOG-GY. I thought you were better than this. Whether it is 'hipster' or not isn't the point. Just because Abstract/DaDa art is easy to do doesn't mean it's bad nor does it mean it's hipster so I don't really see the point in you arguing. So seriously, this is where it ends. No more arguing. This is a Lomo thread, not an 'I hate lomography (it's for hipsters)' thread.[/QUOTE]
As opposed to abstract art lomo is usually just snapshots being glorified with a buzz word to make them seem more interesting.
I actually don't mind a couple of the pictures in the OP but overall lomo is just something mundane being poorly taken. I could do the same with my phone's camera, but I wouldn't dare call most "lomo" pictures artistic at all.
[editline]7th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=labbet;27249446]all i wanted to do was have a thread where people put up lomo pictures.
i had an SLR before my lomo. its a Nikon N4004s. you don't know what your talking about, not in you technical sensor size facts, very dead on. but to insult me and say "oh its just some retard 12 year old who just waltzed into an urban outfiters and bought himself a lomo because of the pretty picture on the box". I have been using film photography for years, and i love it. you are the one who is "[i]putting down real photographers[/i]" by coming down like a ton of bricks because i got my facts wrong, like the more trivia you know the more of a photographer you are. its not like i am screaming "fuck you digital, fuck you SLR, fuck any type of camera that isn't lomo." you made me out to be the lomo troll of the internet. like onox said, its not an advertisement, its just thread on facepunch where lomo owners can put their photos. let it be over.[/QUOTE]
I recommend you not get so emotional and think a little more clearly, because nothing I said was a personal attack. I also said nothing about digital so I don't understand why this tangent is coming up.
he was responding to me calling him out.
it was harsh so i snipped.
oh ok it's still angsty though
i am sorry too. *wipes forehead*
It's not that people do it that annoys me, it's the fact that they're getting ripped off by buying something that probably costs less than a disposable to make, but is lower quality.
[QUOTE=Ajacks;27241187]This seems ridiculous to me with the availability of very low priced and extremely high quality 35mm SLR cameras. Using these relatively expensive toy cameras is trying to hard to be cool.[/QUOTE]
I paid less than a fiver for my holga, don't feel like it was relatively expensive even for a 'toy'
[editline]7th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=daijitsu;27240500]Your post makes little sense, what does film-based lomography have to do with buying big expensive digital 3D cameras and ordering expensively printed lenticular photos?
Plus, it [i]is[/i] a hipster trend to do lomography, much as it is to split tone the hell out of pictures. Doesn't mean that everyone who lomos is a hipster, but...
wait
"shoot from the [b]hip[/b]"
"[b]hip[/b]ster photography"
uncanny, though I know the term comes from being 'hip' and trendy... or ironically not, whatever the fuck hardcore hipsters these days think they're doing
Let's just deem this thread the hipster-ish version of the creative photography thread. People (including me) tend to bitch when split tones come along, I have a feeling they'd be more than accepted here.[/QUOTE]
I would have thought as a mod you'd have abit more of a mature attitude on the subject.
Talking about maturity yet begging for recognition of your toys.
Not begging for anything? Just can't stand people who can't apprechiate something for what it is. If you don't like it, don't post. Don't bombard the thread with your shitty fashion stereotypes, Lomography has been around years before the 'hipster' fashion became popular.
I wish I understood what's going on in this thread.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.