• Lomography - Film cameras aint' so bad after all
    124 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SergeantDead;25466559] hey dumbass, you can still have intent with lomography. if the idea of not knowing your pictures until you develop them is parallel to not having intent, then every photographer before the digital camera had no idea what they were doing. [editline]17th October 2010[/editline] that's people like ansel adams and irving penn, by the way[/QUOTE] The thing with expired film(and cross-processing, but that only to a certain point) is you have no idea at all how it's going to come out, and with many of these cameras you have no control of how it is going to come out. This removes intent, not the not knowing at all how it will look until it's developed. Also, I have no problem with lo-fi photography; I just (personally) don't see the point in doing it before post-processing. Where my problem lies is with lomography, and this idea that art without intent has any point at all.
lomo is for people who can't take decent photos [img]http://kuvaton.com/k/EhV.jpg[/img] oh wow look i put in slow shutter time, shaky hands, stupid hurrdurr pose, and fucked up EV, and I get a regular hipster-lomoshot even with my 5d mk2! fukk i need moar light-bleeding and vingetting to make it look even worse!
[quote=evilking1]lomo is for people who can't take decent photos[/quote] That photo isn't even lomo. Also, check out the lomograhy.com, there are real lomo pics.
[QUOTE=Autumn;25464740]i studied photography and i think it's pretty limiting and naive to just throw out low fi photography just because you think that it's 'hipster' [editline]17th October 2010[/editline] are you one of those people that thinks photography is just about the megapixels and studio flash?[/QUOTE] I studied photography as well (waiting to do my MA) and the funny thing is, is if we brought this type of photos into to college and presented to the teacher, we would be crucified for it. I suppose it depends where you study!
[QUOTE=ForestRaptor;25467165]That photo isn't even lomo. Also, check out the lomograhy.com, there are real lomo pics.[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/OAsGX.png[/img] Now it is.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;25467380] Now it is.[/QUOTE] needs more vingetting and cross processing!!!111
[QUOTE=crazysack;25467277]I studied photography as well (waiting to do my MA) and the funny thing is, is if we brought this type of photos into to college and presented to the teacher, we would be crucified for it.[/QUOTE] but why would you use lomography type photos for a degree? the point in lomo is that it is FUN, why can people not understand that? nobody is saying that OMG TAKE BEST PICTURES EVERRR, but there is a uniqueness to it that you can't match with any other traditional photographic techniques.
[QUOTE=Autumn;25467648]but why would you use lomography type photos for a degree? the point in lomo is that it is FUN, why can people not understand that? nobody is saying that OMG TAKE BEST PICTURES EVERRR, but there is a uniqueness to it that you can't match with any other traditional photographic techniques.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I didn't mean for it to come out like that. I was meant to say, it's more unappreciated. In the end it's photography no matter how you look at it. (Does that make sense, sorry if it doesn't)
How were film cameras even "so bad" in the first place? I love film.
so do i. it encourages to you take a lot more time and effort into setting up a shot, since you're on a limited number of photos, and you'll want to get it as close to right as you can everytime.
hnnng want a bulb camera thing one
I really like the look of lomo (everyone who says it's hipster can fuck right off) but I hate not knowing what my picture will look like until I get it developed. But I guess that's part of the fun. I've learnt how to mostly replicate most of the look in photoshop but it's the accidents and the errors that make truly great pictures, and those can't be replicated.
[QUOTE=Autumn;25465941]i have an OM-20 and would take that any day over lomography cameras for most film photos, but there's still an appeal in lomo. [editline]17th October 2010[/editline] that's really not the point. the point is that you don't know exactly what you've taken and how it's going to turn out until you get it developed.[/QUOTE] I have an OM-10 with a manual adapter. I love it. [editline]18th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Kagrenak;25466239]This effectively ruins the whole point of intent in art. Throwing paint at a canvas isn't art, and neither are random snapshots with shit technique and questionable film.[/QUOTE] It's not about the final product necessarily, but the process by which you take it. Have you ever heard of the DADA art movement? Search it and check it out, it's really interesting. [QUOTE=SergeantDead;25466559]i've only used a holga to make lomography, and had some pretty satisfactory results. hey dumbass, you can still have intent with lomography. if the idea of not knowing your pictures until you develop them is parallel to not having intent, then every photographer before the digital camera had no idea what they were doing. [editline]17th October 2010[/editline] that's people like ansel adams and irving penn, by the way[/QUOTE] But you still don't really know what your pictures are going to tun out like when you're shooting with film on other cameras and other techniques. Even using the most planning and forethought, light meters and equipment, there's always the prospect of your shots turning out differently than what you expected. There are endless variables - from the manufacturing of the film, to the processing (at home or from a photography shop). [QUOTE=Autumn;25467902]so do i. it encourages to you take a lot more time and effort into setting up a shot, since you're on a limited number of photos, and you'll want to get it as close to right as you can everytime.[/QUOTE] Using film is good practice. I think that most people who are interested in photography should learn on a film camera even if it's just to learn basic processes and physics behind the artform. That said, lomography is the exact opposite of what you've just said :D
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;25466398]No, because Jazz has intent, myriad amounts of thought behind it, and an immense amount of creative work goes into the production of it. The comparison is completely invalid, as this is pretty much foregoing all technique and skill needed for proper photography, no foresight is put into the imagery, no message comes forth from the work and there's no driving factor to any of it. This shit is no better than party snapshots, it just has a trendy sheen to it.[/QUOTE] you could say the same about digital photography nowadays. half of the photographers you love and admire are probably on full auto most of the time. your complaints are everything that lomography fans love about it. it's about chaos and the fact that so much shit can get fucked up and that you can't do anything about it because you're dealing with the harsh mistress that is film. you can keep your 16gb memory cards and raw format.
[QUOTE=weed demon;25471289] half of the photographers you love and admire are probably on full auto most of the time.[/QUOTE] I doubt this very much.
[QUOTE=weed demon;25471289] half of the photographers you love and admire are probably on full auto most of the time. [/quote] Really now?
[QUOTE=Cluckin_Bell;25461952]Sorta looks like a hipster thing to me.[/QUOTE] it is
i love lomo cameras. i have the fisheye 2, a holga, and a (broken) diana. the diana was my favourite. i'm getting a new one soon
This is more absurd than riding a fixed-gear.
i'm really interested in one of those Fisheye 2 cameras, i think i can get my hands on one for about 25 euros, they run normal 35mm fimls right? looks fun to experiment with multiple exposures.
[url]http://usa.shop.lomography.com/cameras/diana-f-cameras/diana-mini-noir[/url] Bought this cause of this thread:D
Guys.... guys, guys really guys guys help... help I, I think I might be a hipster.
I've seen these camera's before, I'm dying to get one.
I swear can achieve that shit in Photoshop with some filters in 5 minutes, and I barely know my way around Photoshop that's how uncreative this is
I love how personal and special a film shot looks. If I'm taking an arty farty shot I'll probably use my DSLR, but for getting that grainy classic image for memory photos, film is best. [editline]19th October 2010[/editline] Huck did an article about it a few months back, hella cool. [editline]19th October 2010[/editline] wait they have specific cameras for this? I just use disposables
experimenting with different methods of photography came before hipsters you fucking wasters
check dis out its well cool [url]http://microsites.lomography.com/spinner-360/techniques[/url]
I have a Canon 5D Mark II, and it blows all this shit out of the water. Nah! Obviously, there is a certain charm to the resulting photographs from a film camera, like those above. But the majority of those effects can be simulated, but then you are consciously choosing how to affect the photo, as opposed to it being a spontaneous result. It's like christmas when you get the photos back from the developer.
I love pictures taken with film. That being said, if I'm going to take random shots of things, I'd rather do it with a digital point and shoot. Mainly because film is to damn expensive nowadays, and its easier. I'd rather use the film for something important, using the nice SLR and lenses I have, and know it's going to come out right...
Related [url]http://content.photojojo.com/photojojo-original/through-the-viewfinder/[/url] I have one coming in the mail.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.