What IS Lomography?

Teflon-Mike

Teflon-Mike

Messages
1,076
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
OK, I know what it IS... well as far as any-one can.

Russian LOMO cameras, low tech, low clarity cameras, preferably of the cheapest antiquest, retro-ist kind; getting out, using it, loosing all pretentions about resolution, precision, or clarity, concentrating on the subject, seeing what you get, and if you get any bizarre effects from that camera.... rather than slating the camera for them... calling it 'charecter' and going off and seeing what you can do to exploit that 'technical defect' creatively.

This was not a novel concept, when the Lomo society was formed, or the term 'coined'.

NOW.... my Grandad died in 1997, and families being what they are, the camera he bequeathed to me, only came into my possession last year, and sorting through some 'stuff' I decided to go give it a whirl. This is incidental to the question.... except to explain my ponderings.

This camera, is Kodak Retinette manufactured sometime, probably around 1958/59ish, and was, to my Grandad, a "Wonderful Camera". He would spend many hours NOT taking photo's with it; messing with his tripod, wandering around with his light meter; peering through the accessory range-finder.... giving up.... going and hunting out a tape measure.... messing with the light meter again...... trying to round up his subjects once more who'd all gone to make a cup of tea, watch a TV program, play golf...... you get the idea!

BUT, to My Grandad with his 1950's head on; it was a prized possession. It was a 35mm camera, for a start off; which meant it was better than any of those 'old fasioned things' that used roll film, or horrible cheap and nasty things that took cartridges. 'Proper Camera' this. Precision German Engineering. an 'Expensive' camera... and for the era, it WAS.

To my mind.. this is NOT, a cheap, low-tech, inherent aboration striken 'LOMO' camera.....

So... why when I googled it, to see if I could find any hints and tips before using it.... did I find so many articles or blogs, where people referred to it so? Look at my 'Lomo gallery' all taken with $5 Kodak Retinette, or "Here's my LOMO adventure with a Retinette 1A"

Were even a couple, that clumped pictures taken with an Olympus Trip, or a Pentax K1000 as 'Lomo'!?!?!?

Is it that people don't understand what lomo is? Or has the idea now been stretched 'beyond', and encompasses almost any experimental photography on film as 'Lomo'?

So... what is Lomo?

Is it merely the philosophy or practice, of experimenting with imperfection?
Is it merely a 'style'?
Can you really make Lomo-photos in a digital dark-room?
Or should they really be created ONLY with a low-tech, aboration riden camera?
Are 'good' photo's taken with a lomo camera devoid of significant aborations, STILL 'lomo'?

Does any one have any strong opinions?
Does it really matter, as long as pictures get taken?

Whats your thoughts on the topic?
 
It's fairly symptomatic of the "let's make a good picture out of a bad one" school of thought, characterised by the application of the worst excesses of Mr Cokin,using truly awful cameras, "cross processing", or nowadays the horrors of Photoshop and HDR- it's got clutter all to do with with real photography, and a lot to do with the the horrors of the "Instagram mindset"....:D
 
According to Wikipedia:

"Lomography is an analog camera movement and community"

"Lomography is a community of Lomographic photographers who advocate creative and experimental film photography"



and from another source:


"lomography

a type of art photography in which color is emphasized. Traditionally, cameras such as the Holga, Lomo, Colorsplash, and Supersampler are used to create strange and unusual photographs. Lomographic photos are primarily characterized by vignettes (blurry and faded edges), random subjects, and nonadherance to traditional photography rules."

The " nonadherance to traditional photography rules" is pretty much how I see lomography tbh although I generally don't shoot to "traditional rules" anyway.....I just shoot in whatever way I feel fit at the time so perhaps that puts me as a lomographer....
 
Lomography is a triumph of style over substance.

But without style.

Or, generally, much substance.
 
Lomography is all about Wabi-Sabi, but generally the type of people who do it have the mindset that because they take a crap picture with a crap camera it MUST be beautiful because it's imperfect, which of course isn't the case at all. Some of it though I do get and like.

That reminds me, I have a circa 10 year old roll of something terrible in a terrible Olympus Trip MD3 that needs finishing up. I opened the back and realised there was film in it before deicding to use it so it's going to be Lomo to the core!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
More likely to be FTF! (Fogged to ... Folkstone!)
 
Well the camera's just died on frame 16 so we'll soon find out!
 
Lomography is the mechanism for depriving impoverished film photographers of the opportunity to buy out of date film at discount rates. It serves no other purpose.
 
Organnyx said:
or the ability to spell "analogue":D
Click to expand...

And the ability not to use that word to describe traditional photography!

There were quite a few Retinette models (I have a couple). Can you post a picture of yours? They are wonderful, fine, precision machines and not to be confused with the usual plastic Lomo boxes.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Lighten up folks, I don't care what you call it, it's folks shooting film and having fun what's not to like?
 
RaglanSurf said:
Lighten up folks, I don't care what you call it, it's folks shooting film and having fun what's not to like?
Click to expand...

This (y)

Anything that possibly extends the production of film, or acts as a gateway to people using good film in good cameras is to be commended. LOMO is the equivalent of I'm a celebrity or embarrassing bodies in tele land; lowest common denominator that sort of washes over you without giving or promising much to the viewer :shrug:. It does have the faint ring of style around it though which will eventually fade as people's Mums and Dads also get into it :LOL:, and as such is just another fad

It's not a terrible thing, and people labelling their pictures taken with any old camera lomo isn't either, they just don't know or care any differently, and nor should they
 
Lomography is probably the most important thing to happen to traditional photography for many a year. Thousands of younger people are buying film. There is more film about :)

I'm not a massive fan of the cameras though. That Bel Air one looks interesting but very expensive!
 
So, the concensus so far is.....its a 'style' understood by few and emulated by many.. often badly, or offered as an excuse for poor photo's, while the underlying ethos of the true lomo exponent, to produce unique pictures exploiting low-tech aborations, is..... lost on almost all who suggest they practice it?

Something like that?

Steve Smith said:
There were quite a few Retinette models (I have a couple). Can you post a picture of yours?
Click to expand...
Mine.... I suppose it IS... 'mine' now, isn't it?! Hard to think of it as anything but 'Grandads'... still has so much of his energy resonating in its metal & mechanisms.... but yeah.. its a 1A, f3.5/50 Reomar & Pronto. Definitely pre-61 as it was a gift before he left Africa that year.... <s>watch the "Photos from Film" board</s> (add on Edd: See here:- Point & Guess!; I have, barely three hours ago, collected the first film I have taken in probably ten years from ASDA that has just come out of it, and will post soon!
 
Last edited:
I was recently able to pick up a lomo camera (fisheye 1 to be precise) in the closing down sale of the manchester lomo store.

If I'm honest, I'm quite sad the lomo store has shut - it often had people in it, and anywhere selling film in a public market place and offering camera knowledge is good, right?

as for what lomo is - to me, it's just about taking photo's for taking photos sake. I like it because it's the perfect way to just have fun with photography, not taking it seriously and just using it to document the things around you.

many people (myself included) will only take a picture if it looks right, the composition is perfect, the light is great and the optical quality of the camera is good - lomo is all about taking photos of memories irrelivant to what makes the 'perfect picture'.

It's helping to keep the film industry alive, that can only be a good thing.
 
Ash. said:
as for what lomo is - to me, it's just about taking photo's for taking photos sake. I like it because it's the perfect way to just have fun with photography, not taking it seriously and just using it to document the things around you.
Click to expand...
That could be read, essentially as, lomo being anything that isn't 'serious' photography, with a lot of snap-shot family photo and a little reportage chucked in for good measure..... in fact... about 99.999% of all my photo-taking!
Is this lomo?
13540021.jpg

A family snap-shot of what was going on around us on a day out? This?
13540015.jpg

When I jumped out the Rangie to grab a nice view? Or even....
13680006.jpg

When said Range Rover required an over-haul & I decided to chronicle the engine rebuild.......
All taken, as it happens with a cheap, 1.3Mpix compact, BTW, but in no way attempting to exploit optical defects; quite the converse in fact......
 
Last edited:
well technically, they're not lomo as they're taken on a digital camera...

but yeah, basically that's what I see lomo as - every day snaps of nothing in particular lol. just taking photos, experimenting, documenting, whatever!

That being said, some people are particularly good at making mundane objects and day to day life seem more interesting using lomo... the same way a good landscape photographer can make a scene look more interesting than an average landscape photographer.

http://www.lomography.com/about/the-ten-golden-rules

I think far too many people, especially on forums, get way too hung up on having the ultimate sharpness in a lens, the perfect colour balance, no distortion, everything in focus etc etc... lomo takes that away, seeing as there is no optical quality, it's all about enjoying what you shoot.
 
Last edited:
RaglanSurf said:
Lighten up folks, I don't care what you call it, it's folks shooting film and having fun what's not to like?
Click to expand...

I've made this point before - they manage to make a huge profit selling a vast range of film photography products, produce new cameras and release different film emulsions. That's significantly more than most manufacturers are doing to promote film (most of them treat it like the side business that is more hassle then it's worth).
 
Ash. said:
well technically, they're not lomo as they're taken on a digital camera...

but yeah, basically that's what I see lomo as - every day snaps of nothing in particular lol. just taking photos, experimenting, documenting, whatever!
Click to expand...

Nothing in the Lomo rules about it HAVING to be on film.....
& as mentioned lomo-ideology existed before lomo-terminology....
The lomo-rules, are mere mantras extracted from common pre-existing photo-philosophy and advice.
Its a wonderful exercise in branding... without actually having anything to hang that brand on, as far as I can see!
Except for the Lomo 'branded' cameras themselves that is! Now THAT is a stroke of genius! Take a 99p toy camera, big it up as something more unique and exclusive than it is and flog it for £99... have to give lomo inc credit for that one!

Meanwhile, not too sure that I'm comfortable having most of my family photo's and mechanical guide illustrations, 'demoted' to being 'lomo'... though by your defanition, of something that seems to lack a more specific one, they are!

dsc_0181.jpg


OK... there's another one for you; slightly more obvious technical illustration. Circles and annotations give it away in this one; was shot to show the location of key components on the carburettors of a small honda motorcycle, when syncronising its carburettors....

This is not 'art' photography... but following your frame of reference, disregarding anything that's not created merely for photography's own sake... just whats going on around you, reporting stuff..... yeah? This cant be 'seriouse' photography, ergo it MUST be 'lomo'....

So.... leading you, along your line of elitist thinking..... turn it around, if everything that's not serious photography is, by your terms of reference 'lomo'..... what's 'serious-photography'?
 
I think the more important question is, "Does it really matter?".

As has been said above, the 'Lomo' brand has made people continue to buy/shoot film for whatever they want and that's a good thing. The spin off sales are bound to happen as a result of any fashionable brand. The same idea also spreads across to digital with apps like Hipstamatic (which was originally a Lomo-style film) and obviously Instagram but it's all still photography.

Too many people get hung up on the almost snobby attitude that Lomo devalues analogue film photography. To the masses, a 'classic' film camera does probably look like an antique and added to the fact they can be bought for less than a tenner I can see where the comparison to Lomo is made. The fact is, you're camera means something to you because of who's it was so you should just keep shooting with it and not worry about how or why.

Cheers
Steve
 
"continue to buy/shoot film for whatever they want and that's a good thing" - why is that a "good thing?" - having learnt photography the hard way, and made my living with film for many years, I'm unconvinced that keeping film alive by taking awful photographs is actually a good idea, especially as most people are going to scan the negs anyway....
When I think back to doing weddings not that long ago using a Nikon FM2, I wonder how we managed it - manual everything - weighed a ton, pray that you've got results until the processing results come back.........

There is also the other point about film - it's expensive stuff to make and process, and somewhat of an eco-disaster - digital is far "greener".........
 
norters said:
Lomography is probably the most important thing to happen to traditional photography for many a year. Thousands of younger people are buying film. There is more film about :)

I'm not a massive fan of the cameras though. That Bel Air one looks interesting but very expensive!
Click to expand...


Yes for me too(y)
 
Organnyx said:
"continue to buy/shoot film for whatever they want and that's a good thing" - why is that a "good thing?" - having learnt photography the hard way, and made my living with film for many years, I'm unconvinced that keeping film alive by taking awful photographs is actually a good idea, especially as most people are going to scan the negs anyway....
When I think back to doing weddings not that long ago using a Nikon FM2, I wonder how we managed it - manual everything - weighed a ton, pray that you've got results until the processing results come back.........

There is also the other point about film - it's expensive stuff to make and process, and somewhat of an eco-disaster - digital is far "greener".........
Click to expand...

You have noticed you are in the film section, right? We all rather enjoy using film in here.
 
Teflon-Mike said:
OK, I know what it IS... well as far as any-one can.

Russian LOMO cameras, low tech, low clarity cameras, preferably of the cheapest antiquest, retro-ist kind; getting out, using it, loosing all pretentions about resolution, precision, or clarity, concentrating on the subject, seeing what you get, and if you get any bizarre effects from that camera.... rather than slating the camera for them... calling it 'charecter' and going off and seeing what you can do to exploit that 'technical defect' creatively.

This was not a novel concept, when the Lomo society was formed, or the term 'coined'.

NOW.... my Grandad died in 1997, and families being what they are, the camera he bequeathed to me, only came into my possession last year, and sorting through some 'stuff' I decided to go give it a whirl. This is incidental to the question.... except to explain my ponderings.

This camera, is Kodak Retinette manufactured sometime, probably around 1958/59ish, and was, to my Grandad, a "Wonderful Camera". He would spend many hours NOT taking photo's with it; messing with his tripod, wandering around with his light meter; peering through the accessory range-finder.... giving up.... going and hunting out a tape measure.... messing with the light meter again...... trying to round up his subjects once more who'd all gone to make a cup of tea, watch a TV program, play golf...... you get the idea!

BUT, to My Grandad with his 1950's head on; it was a prized possession. It was a 35mm camera, for a start off; which meant it was better than any of those 'old fasioned things' that used roll film, or horrible cheap and nasty things that took cartridges. 'Proper Camera' this. Precision German Engineering. an 'Expensive' camera... and for the era, it WAS.

To my mind.. this is NOT, a cheap, low-tech, inherent aboration striken 'LOMO' camera.....

So... why when I googled it, to see if I could find any hints and tips before using it.... did I find so many articles or blogs, where people referred to it so? Look at my 'Lomo gallery' all taken with $5 Kodak Retinette, or "Here's my LOMO adventure with a Retinette 1A"

Were even a couple, that clumped pictures taken with an Olympus Trip, or a Pentax K1000 as 'Lomo'!?!?!?

Is it that people don't understand what lomo is? Or has the idea now been stretched 'beyond', and encompasses almost any experimental photography on film as 'Lomo'?

So... what is Lomo?

Is it merely the philosophy or practice, of experimenting with imperfection?
Is it merely a 'style'?
Can you really make Lomo-photos in a digital dark-room?
Or should they really be created ONLY with a low-tech, aboration riden camera?
Are 'good' photo's taken with a lomo camera devoid of significant aborations, STILL 'lomo'?

Does any one have any strong opinions?
Does it really matter, as long as pictures get taken?

Whats your thoughts on the topic?
Click to expand...

I am not sure those that post here would include some of the cameras you mention as "LOMO". For the most part we all shoot on "proper" film and tend not to cross process. Many of the photos you will find in here are taken with all sorts of cameras. I think most of us here would consider ourselves as taking photographs in the traditional sense than shooting LOMO. Perhaps some younger people elsewhere see all film photography as LOMO as they consider it outmoded or quaint and therefore "hip". The F&C gang probably would't agree!
 
LOMOGRAPHY,

It is and was a marketing strategy by the people that bought the manufacturing/sales rights for all the camera,s and my god have they done a brilliant job, yes long live all those young shooters and pass it on to your children when you have them.

It means film lives.
 
I think there's a big mistake in confusing "lomography" with photography - several posts on this forum have show how little people appreciate the difference the film you're using makes, some seem very happy with some pretty ghastly stuff (especially if it's cheap), as I said "I'm unconvinced that keeping film alive by taking awful photographs is actually a good idea" - that's not saying that keeping film alive is bad per se, but what is "bad" is the glorification of the bad and mediocre as some form of trendy "kings new clothes" nonsense -I doubt it'll result in keeping good films on the market anyway.........
 
Organnyx said:
When I think back to doing weddings not that long ago using a Nikon FM2, I wonder how we managed it - manual everything - weighed a ton, pray that you've got results until the processing results come back.........
Click to expand...

FM2 weighs 540grams, add an MD-12 motor drive which is 410grams (sans batteries) = 950grams

D700 = 1085grams

Sure, with batteries the FM2 will end up weighing more, but not significantly? :shrug:

Organnyx said:
There is also the other point about film - it's expensive stuff to make and process, and somewhat of an eco-disaster - digital is far "greener".........
Click to expand...

As a film and digital shooter, I'm not sure digital is necessarily that much better... sure, film photography uses a lot of silver and other precious metals and materials, and gelatin, but DSLRs are not filled with hemp and grass you know :bonk: besides, if you truly had green concerns, any form of photographic product would be off limits! I don't think it's a concern for the vast majority of photographers.
 
I'm afraid any one who thinks digital is in some way less bad is deluding themselves. The production of semiconductors is incredibly energy intensive, uses vast amount of water and is since the cameras are mostly assembled in China you tacitly approve their human rights and environmental policies. That's before we get to the construction and energy consumption of the big powerful computers to run photoshop or the fact that digital has put decent cameras in far more people's hands.

I'm not having a go at any one for choosing to buy a digital camera or any Chinese goods but to say they're "green" is a gross simplification.
 
Add 8xaa batteries and a sodding great hammerhead flashgun and bracket (with even more batteries), you've got a wrist-wrecker!
Most people just can't understand what use of such a beast in anger entails - you're standing in the churchyard photographing the guests as they arrive, and there's a large shadow cast by the bushes - you turn one way - 1/250@f8, fill flash@5.6, focus manually take the shot, turn the other way, 1/60@5.6, flash@4, manual focus, take the shot - turn back for the next guest......Then you have no "review" to ensure you've "hit the spot" - you have to wind like mad to change the roll every 36 shots - make sure you're working "left to right" (unused films in left hand jacket pocket, used ones in right hand), make sure you wind the "tail" in to denote "used" - try not to drop the films (keep counting them all out and back in.......). I have also used an FM2 in the days of ni-cad batteries photographing big events - you'd often burn your hand on the batteries when you had to change them as they got so hot.........

I've kept an FM2, drive and flashgun for "old times sake", and will be happy to put the odd film through it "for the fun of it", but I don't pretend it was an easy way to take pictures, and modern developments have enabled faster and easier ways of doing it, allowing more time for "creative thinking" rather than being bogged down in the sheer mechanics

As for the "eco" aspect, perhaps we should all be more conscious of such things - there's no doubt digital saves a lot of energy and precious resources, and cuts down on pollution by the chemicals we used to use, and enables people to learn affordably by taking gazillions of images.......
 
Last edited:
Sorry Organnyx, but you just sound bitter to me. A new generation of people using film cameras doesn't devalue all the hard work you did at weddings, you know. Your work was done to achieve the "perfect" photograph, whereas people who enjoy Lomography are usually looking for something more artistic, more random.
 
This thread is in danger of going down the film vs digital route!

There's a gallery round these parts that has always sold lomography films and cameras. Last week they started stocking all Ilford films for the first time, including Delta and FP4. They told me that there was such a demand for small amount of lomography film they stock that they have decided to stock Ilford. Now there is a place for me to go to buy Delta on the high street for the first time in years in this city. All because a load of people have been introduced to film through lomography.

Who knows, a few of the 'lomo kids' might want to go through their parent's cupboards and find that old Praktica that everyone's parents had and put a roll of Delta through it. And when they see the results they get from that and the Helios 44 then forget about it! Obsession time.

EVERYONE WINS!

Except for my bank balance as I just bought four more rolls of FP4 today :bonk:
 
mothdust said:
people who enjoy Lomography are usually looking for something more artistic, more random.
Click to expand...

These are the new clothes that the Emperor is wearing. Art is not definitively random, and Lomography is not definitively more artistic. There is a difference between fashion and style, and Lomography is all fashion. If you see the Lomographic product as inherently more artistic, you're either being fooled or you're fooling yourself. It's an Instagram filter-sized trick of the light.

It's good that Lomography is facilitating the continuation of film by popularising the medium, but only in that it assures the availability of the medium for those who wish to explore it for their art. I don't think, however, that it is beneficial to pretend that Lomography is itself an artistic form with merit. If good art results, it will stand on its own merit, not because it owes its existence to Lomography.
 
Perhaps those who enjoy lomography are simply looking for something different to what is considered the norm / traditional........imo opinion ALL photography is a form of art, wether we like it as individuals is purely a matter of personal taste.

I'm seeing this thread becoming one that does very little to encourage people ( especially newcomers) to post their work for fear of being branded as non traditional etc etc

If you like the results then shoot it, print it, share it.....if not, then do similar but with a method in which you enjoy the results.
 
SimonH said:
There is a difference between fashion and style, and Lomography is all fashion.
Click to expand...
"Fashions Come & Go, style Remains" (Coco Chanel?)
Just because Lomo is 'fashionable' does not deny that the style may have merit, or that it may endure....
However, that is to pre-suppose that lomo IS merely a style....
AND, if it is, WHAT that 'style' IS?
Back to the top!

So... what is Lomo?​

Is it merely the philosophy or practice, of experimenting with imperfection?
Is it merely a 'style'?
Can you really make Lomo-photos in a digital dark-room?
Or should they really be created ONLY with a low-tech, aboration riden camera?
Are 'good' photo's taken with a lomo camera devoid of significant aborations, STILL 'lomo'?​

The debate is getting good!

... many are deriding Lomo, while others are supporting it, all seem to have differing ideas of it, but few are nailing it down any and actually answering the questions? WHAT is it?!

Thought provoking, isn't it?
 
Teflon-Mike said:
The debate is getting good!
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if this thread is to actually assertain the basis of lomography or simply to cause a heated debate......

Teflon-Mike said:
... many are deriding Lomo, while others are supporting it, all seem to have differing ideas of it, but few are nailing it down any and actually answering the questions? WHAT is it?!
Click to expand...

Lomography is whatever you (or any other individual) wishes it to be!
Teflon-Mike said:
Thought provoking, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Not imo.....not long ago I shot pinhole on a WPC Holga.....one of the results was reasonably sharp....take away the vignetting and reframe, the end result could easily have been taken with a Zenit, AE-1, ETRS, Box Brownie or just about any other camera....without my admission, no one would have much idea what it was shot with.

In the same way we all have very good shots that we could add vignetting, blur etc and kid ourselves they were shot on a specific £100 lomo camera.

I'm finding myself becoming totally lost in this search for THE answer that the OP wishes for.......perhaps the official lomo site may offer more help?!!!..................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top