[BigMackCam]

I think it's interesting how popular (hugely so) the entire "Lomography" thing has become, especially even with younger shooters. It is, as near as I can tell, the absolute antithesis to the Cult of Sharpness... almost a reaction against it. Lomo isn't really my thing - I enjoy a weird, arty image now and again, and I have taken plenty but it's not my forte, viewing or taking. I do understand the appeal of it though, and it seems to be the film punk to the digital establishment!

I think this whole Lomo-thing is hipster-driven. I would add hipster-driven rubbish but I dont want to offend anybody. The net is flooded with that stuff so it's quite uninteresting to me. To see that kind of picture now and then with a real intention - great. Wrong development can look interesting. But it's used in an almost decadent way. The same for me with übersharpness (yes, I have an ü on my keyboard )

Hipster driven rubbish is the right description.

I think it's a shame how dismissive some folks are of so-called "Lomography"... I understand those for whom it doesn't have any appeal, but I don't understand anyone dismissing it wholesale. A great deal of it is of a very poor standard, for sure, but I've also seen some wonderful Holga and Diana photographs (some taken by professional photographers who prefer to get the "Holga look" traditionally rather than through digital post-processing), as well as lots of interesting shots taken with a wide variety of old 35mm and 120 film cameras with questionable-quality lenses. I'm no hipster, but before I started getting into digital photography properly, I took great enjoyment from snapping away with a Lomo LC-A and various others, and whilst a lot of my shots weren't anything special, a few - amongst those I spent time and effort on - turned out very well indeed. What's more, I had an enormous amount of fun taking them - and something that much fun can't be all bad, eh?

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 07-12-2016 at 08:07 AM.

[yucafrita]

I think it's a shame how dismissive some folks are of so-called "Lomography"... I understand those for whom it doesn't have any appeal, but I don't understand anyone dismissing it wholesale. A great deal of it is of a very poor standard, for sure, but I've also seen some wonderful Holga and Diana photographs (some taken by professional photographers who prefer to get the "Holga look" traditionally rather than through digital post-processing), as well as lots of interesting shots taken with a wide variety of old 35mm and 120 film cameras with questionable-quality lenses. I'm no hipster, but before I started getting into digital photography properly, I took great enjoyment from snapping away with a Lomo LC-A and various others, and whilst a lot of my shots weren't anything special, a few - amongst those I spent time and effort on - turned out very well indeed. What's more, I had an enormous amount of fun taking them - and something that much fun can't be all bad, eh?

It's not that I am dismissive of Lomography as a whole. There is stuff I like. I am dismissive of the inflationary flooding but that's true for many other things in modern world. However, it became en vogue to do that and as always, en vogue stuff may over-satisfy you. It's like full beard. Now everyone has one, so what's the point... being shaved is distinguishing you today, or . So, with inflationary use of sharpness it's the same, what's the point if the picture doesnt work? Although this may be attributed to different tastes.

[gofour3]

To quote The Police: "too much information is running through my brain, too much information is driving me insane." Too much of everything. In Flickr groups, I scroll through the first and second page of pictures of a group or two, and then it is already boring. I scroll through some albums of some photographers, its the same. The net in some sense is democracy, everybody can add but its also like fast food. The first bite is yummy, the rest is boring. To find a really good burger, you'll have to walk a mile... BTW, I dont exclude my own pictures of being mostly boring. However, I try to not show them (maybe failing, I dont know).

Yeah too many pictures online these days.

It was more fun back before the internet and digital images. Excluding galleries, the only place you could look at other peoples work was via a "one on one" photo album or with a slide show. Travel agencies used to put on professional slide shows to entice people into travelling to those destinations, I saw a few of them and got many trip ideas.

Then there were the amateur slide shows for family, friends and work mates. I did many trip slide shows over the years and you had to do a '"compact" version of the best photos for most people or you would see folks nodding off too sleep. The "entire" set of slides for a trip was reserved for just the closest family members!

Phil.

[BigMackCam]

It's not that I am dismissive of Lomography as a whole. There is stuff I like. I am dismissive of the inflationary flooding but that's true for many other things in modern world.

I agree. It has become very prolific - and the problem is that a large volume of it really isn't very good, and I do think that tends to turn a lot of people away from what is, when all said and done, just another photographic pursuit

[Eyewanders]

I agree. It has become very prolific - and the problem is that a large volume of it really isn't very good, and I do think that tends to turn a lot of people away from what is, when all said and done, just another photographic pursuit

That's true about photography (and many other things) as a whole really. I agree with your earlier comments about 'lomography' - I don't dismiss it at all. It certainly has become a "hip" thing, but personally I don't really think the whole "hipster" moniker means much of anything at all. Trendy is trendy and has always existed since fops and flapper girls, greased hair and disco.
I, in fact, have tiny half-frame Belomo camera loaded right now. I snap them because the results are often unexpected, care-free, and it's fun - a good way to get creative documentation of your world without carrying a large and/or very expensive bit of kit around. I only brought it up because I think (still do) that it really did come about subconsciously as an answer to the clinical perfection of the more and more pervasive digital imagery. Hipstamatic and mobile filters are the same.