Originally posted by pathdoc The paranoiac in me goes further than that, but we are soaring here into the realms of detective fiction rather than proven or even probable fact.
Now, when did that ever stop a good internet "news" story?!
Originally posted by pathdoc Lomography, on the other hand, continue to soldier on. There are some aspects of their philosophy regarding film photography that don't sit well with me, but OTOH they have a reasonably diverse line of products that probably does a lot to keep them afloat and subsidize the hardcore lens-development branch of the company (which has a good record for turning ideas into hardware). Meyer 2.0 could do a lot worse than become a division of Lomo. In fact, if I were the one with the chief decision making power in Mr Immes' absence, I'd be treating that as my first and best option for survival.
Lomography has been very clever in creating a hipster photography market based (initially) around old, used, cheap-to-source and (later) cheap-to-manufacture, low quality cameras and lenses, further leveraging relationships with original manufacturers like Russia's KMZ plant to provide distribution of niche products worldwide.
Part of the success, I think, is due to them promoting the "
it's hip to shoot analogue" concept and community, and aiming many of the products at those with little or no photographic skill - at least, to begin with. Lomography has become something of a movement and a club, and that's very attractive to some people - especially when their "happy mistakes" are considered "artistic achievements". It's a clever way to shift products that many would dismiss as rather poor (though I will admit that they produce and supply
some great products - you just have to be
very selective!!).
I agree completely MOG joining the Lomography family. It would extend Lomography's range of more serious products, whilst remaining faithful to the artistic and hip aspects. And it would be a better outcome for MOG than the alternative...