Lomography

[Mask]

Lomography
http://www.lomography.com/photos/cou...states/popular

Its an art form and cultural "happening" {kinda like your photo brain on drugs}.
Often done with film, simple cameras, hybrid digital, alt process.
Is it here to stay ???

[Hanky]

Yep, you can get a nice lomo at Arlington Camera.

[epoh]

Here to stay? Considering it's already like 30yrs old, I'd say so. :p

[Ernst-Ulrich Schafer]

Have to agree with Amy, those toy camera's have been around along time and are used by some serious photographers. The Diana Camera's have become a cult like thing. I have two Holga's myself. Ever here of a magazine called SHOTS, lots of toy camera users publish.

Best to ya, Ernst

[jeffkohn]

The cameras may be here to stay, but IMHO the current popularity will fade. Light leaks and other technical defects don't make otherwise unispired images any more interesting, once the novelty of the gimmick wears thin due to overuse (just like with those tilt/shift "model" images).

[Ernst-Ulrich Schafer]

Sorry Jeff, but I do have to disagree. Remember the old saying "It's not the camera" and this rings very true when viewing great images from toy cameras.

Shots Magazine or on fb: SHOTS Magazine | Facebook

[wclavey]

This is a good aspect of the forum mentality... every person can have his opinion...

I think that things like Dianas, Lomos, Holgas, etc. fall into 2 camps of use... there are a collection of "serious" photographers who always have a bag of Lomo-like bodies loaded for work they are doing... you run into them everywhere, just like Ernst-Ulrich says above, "...I have two Holga's myself." My son always carries a Holga around with him, too.

But these people are not the people who keep Holga-Lomo-Diana (DiaLoGa?) in businesses... I think that other "experimenters" - - often relatively new-comers or photo students - - see this body of work (from the above people), see the fad aspects of it (the freedom from exposure, focus, light-tightness, reproducibility, etc.), are intrigued by it and try it. Some may stick with it for a few months, maybe even a few years, and they may even become part of the significantly smaller collection of Holga-Lomo-Diana photographers I described above. But for most, it really is a fad, as Jeff describes it. That's what fuels the business.

Schools using it as an interest-creation avenue, for example, will probably drive far more sales than the serious photo crowd. At some point, even the serious Holga-Lomo-Diana photographer has reached stasis with the number of cameras he needs, but every year, there is a new batch of 10th-graders taking Photo 101 at high schools across the country. And I would suspect that for the majority of those students, the consumption of the Holga-Lomo-Diana follows a fad curve.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by Ernst-Ulrich Schafer

Sorry Jeff, but I do have to disagree. Remember the old saying "It's not the camera" and this rings very true when viewing great images from toy cameras.

I've never liked that saying much, because I think it takes a grain of truth and inflates/exaggerates it to the point of near-falsehood. After all, if that were literally true, everybody could just use the same basic point-n-shoot and there would be no need for the massive variety of camera equipment in the marketplace. I happen to think that equipment and craft do matter, even though they're not the only things that matter.

Still, I find that a strange argument to use for toy cameras, because "It's not the camera" could just as easily apply to toy cameras as uber-expensive ones. Much of what I see from the toy camera genre has nothing going for it except the 'charm' of the toy camera aesthetic; and that aesthetic wears thin when it becomes too widespread. I can't help but think that a lot of people (admittedly not all) who try out toy cameras do so because they think it will make their work stand out as different or unique; but the more people who try it, the less interesting and unique it becomes. That's what makes it a fad IMHO; and that's why I think, like most fads, its popularity will fade over time (which is not the same thing as disappearing altogether). For many it will just be a phase they go through, before moving on to the next fad.

That's not to say great images can't be made with toy cameras (which I never claimed). It's just that light leaks and crappy optics alone don't make great images, any more than super-sharp optics and perfect exposure do. The fact that many of toy photography's 'serious' practitioners fall into the post-modernist anti-aesthetic camp doesn't exactly endear me to the genre, but that's probably another thread...

[Jake]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

.... For many it will just be a phase they go through, before moving on to the next fad.
.......

I agree with this part about it being a phase, but I'm not so sure about it going away. As long as there are hipster photo students, it will be around. I doubt many at all will stick with it, but there will always be a new batch.
I keep thinking really bad out of focus B&W will go out of style, but I'll be darned if I don't see everywhere as a "style"......

[Ernst-Ulrich Schafer]

For me it comes down to the image, is it good or is it just crap!
Does it matter what camera was used?

[janikphoto]

Originally Posted by epoh

Here to stay? Considering it's already like 30yrs old, I'd say so. :p

uh, yeah. I have friends who climbed aboard the lomo-wagon ten years ago... and if you count the diana-lovers (the toy camera that inspired the lomo guys to make toy cameras a thing of worship), it's been around since the 1960's.