Yet Another Cycling Forum
Random Musings => Gallery => Phototalk => Topic started by: MikeFromLFE on 29 June, 2017, 07:56:38 am
-
Disclaimer: I know sweet fairy-anne about photography.
Wandering round the internet yesterday I came across the concept of Lomography - itself being a trade mark of the self-named company.
This seems to be an interesting take on arty photography at a fairly low entry price - the gallery at Lomography.com includes lots of very pretty pictures taken using charity shop/eBay 35mm cameras and standard film.
But on the other hand, why shouldn't I just snap away using my simple smart-phone stick the best through a filter app to make them look 'retro' and send them off to be printed.
Is Lomography a door into art-photography for the rest of us, or the equivalent of riding a fixed up a hill in skinny jeans?
-
Lomography is more the fluorescent single speed of photography. The Holga started the trend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holga
-
Lomography isn't art, but you might use Lomography to make art. That to say that no one technique, device or approach makes your work art, but neither will any of them stop you making art. That's about intent and purpose I think.
I suspect it might be fun though
-
There are so many glorious vintage 35mm cameras, available for peanuts, that Lomo would be way down my list.
I have a few old 35mm cameras, purely for decoration and fiddling, but they work and, in the case of this Balda Matic range-finder, work so amazingly well that you wonder just how the bloody hell they included so many wonderful features in a mechanical box.
- Light meter linked to aperture and film speed
- Apertures linked to shutter-speeds
- Depth of field indicators
- Rangefinder
- Shots remaining indicator
- Shutter speeds 1/500 to 1 sec
It's a bloody marvel to be honest.....oh yes...and beautiful.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4620/40523556581_68e087faf6_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24JVPy2)]
55 year old mechanical miracle taken with a 1 year old miracle (Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge)
-
That is really nice. :thumbsup:
But what I really wanted in my yoof was a Voigtlander.
-
That is really nice. :thumbsup:
But what I really wanted in my yoof was a Voigtlander.
Lots of nice Voigtlanders available on Ebay for not very much. Lovely "man-cave" ornaments.
(my Baldamatic "ornament" was £5 from Ebay... and it even appears to function fully*!!!)
* I wouldn't be surprised if the shutter-speeds were off...but it's irrelevant as I'm unlikely ever to put film in it.
-
That is really nice. :thumbsup:
But what I really wanted in my yoof was a Voigtlander.
Here you go:
(http://www.pbase.com/johnewing/image/151956466.jpg)
Or did you mean this?
(http://www.pbase.com/johnewing/image/151956447.jpg)
-
Re Lomography, I always thought it was more of a collective joke than an art-form; taking truly awful pictures, claiming it was done on purpose, and turning it into a movement à la Dadaism.
-
That is really nice. :thumbsup:
But what I really wanted in my yoof was a Voigtlander.
Here you go:
(http://www.pbase.com/johnewing/image/151956466.jpg)
Or did you mean this?
(http://www.pbase.com/johnewing/image/151956447.jpg)
Cheers!
The top one. It just looks like my idea of a proper camera (that and the Nikon F I had for years). My second camera (after a Box Brownie) was a Folding Brownie but even then they were a bit old-fashioned. :)
-
I have a folding/bellows Kodak similar to the VL above but, after years as an ornament, unfolded, it's covered in dust and the bellows have gone brittle.
Otherwise, all for about a fiver or less...35mm Porn ...and a bit of 127 sadism thrown in for good measure.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4708/40514205972_701b00bd3d_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24J6TWC)]
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4630/38746583100_81bbca9568_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/222Unfd)]
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4625/39846239934_93a82a087d_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23H5oUN)]
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4607/39661707225_a9c5b578c4_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23qLBLn)]
The Balda is by far the most technically advanced though*, and reassuringly heavy and solid.
*The lens is mechanically connected to not only the rangefinder but also the film speed dial and light meter display. There can't be any spare "real estate" inside it.
All three 35mm cameras have 45mm f/2.8 lenses. Now I find myself using a Canon 5D with a 40mm f/2.8. (My beloved Olympus XA2 was a 35mm f/2.8 )...so it seems i'm reverting to the 1980s (or the 1950s).
Thinking about it, a working XA2 (Ebay £30) would be a fabulous way into 35mm film photography. Cracking lens, truly a pocket camera with a simplicity that belied its results.
-
Those German cameras from before the rise of the Japanese camera industry were all pretty solid. Here's our Retinette II B:
(http://www.pbase.com/johnewing/image/151956461.jpg)
This was one of the upstarts:
(http://www.pbase.com/johnewing/image/151956459.jpg)
(http://www.pbase.com/johnewing/image/151956460.jpg)
The Inlaw Paw bought this one for under £10 in Aden during a stopover on the way to Uganda around 1960. According to Mme T42, the Inlaw Maw gave him hell for it.
All those early light-meters are kaput now, though. Shame.
-
Engineering Art.
Should I put a roll of B&W through the Balda I wonder. I'll see how the light meter compares to my DSLR readout.
-
...why shouldn't I just snap away using my simple smart-phone stick the best through a filter app to make them look 'retro' and send them off to be printed.
Is Lomography a door into art-photography for the rest of us, or the equivalent of riding a fixed up a hill in skinny jeans?
Yes, no, maybe, it doesn't matter. There's always people ready to judge.
Do whatever has meaning/is interesting/fun for you and don't worry.
Art is what artists, including you, say it is.
-
Art is what artists, including you, say it is.
That was my daughter's excuse for turning out 36 blurry pictures with a perfectly good OM-10.
-
...why shouldn't I just snap away using my simple smart-phone stick the best through a filter app to make them look 'retro' and send them off to be printed.
Is Lomography a door into art-photography for the rest of us, or the equivalent of riding a fixed up a hill in skinny jeans?
Yes, no, maybe, it doesn't matter. There's always people ready to judge.
Do whatever has meaning/is interesting/fun for you and don't worry.
Art is what artists, including you, say it is.
I have to say that my first choice would be to use a LOMO filter on my phone...but then again some people like riding fixed and playing vinyl with record players.
If the process is an important part of the experience then go for it.
-
Art is what artists, including you, say it is.
That was my daughter's excuse for turning out 36 blurry pictures with a perfectly good OM-10.
Provided she intended them to be blurry that would be fine!
Or sometimes you get the occasional lovely accident, although most of my blurry accidents are with af and for me that’s digital. I still prefer my film and film cameras though, regardless of Lee’s commentary.
-
I might ask my parents what became of Dad's Voigtlander when they return from Forn Parts.
-
Or sometimes you get the occasional lovely accident, although most of my blurry accidents are with af and for me that’s digital. I still prefer my film and film cameras though, regardless of Lee’s commentary.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4607/39819285234_e8ec3d91b4_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23EGfdA)
Recent accident of mine that I liked.
(An old Nikon 50mm f/1.4 at 1.4 on a bright sunny day, when the DSLR couldn't figure out the aperture because I'd selected a different manual lens in the lens menu, so it massively over exposed, so I pulled it way back in Lightroom and got this interesting contrast curve with everything at either end and very steep contrast in the middle.)
-
I still prefer my film and film cameras though, regardless of Lee’s commentary.
Is that because of the process involved, the loading of the film, knowing you have only 36 exposures, the wait until you see the results..etc, or the results themselves?
I admit that the wait, to see the results, is a feeling hard to replace.
From a results point of view though I honestly think 35mm film, printed traditionally, with dodging & burning, is inferior to a modern DSLR+Photoshop, but that 36exp limit helps focus the mind and it teaches you that every composition needs to be special.
The world moves on though, and the most popular photographers are now 15 year olds, taking photos with their phone and posting immediately to millions of followers on social media.
One day that will seem as "lame" as standing at a wooden tripod, under a piece of black cloth, while your subject remains motionless for the 15 second exposure.
-
Come to think of it, I did a bit of Lomography after the fact a few years back, using a combination of filters from a bunch called Flaming Pear:
(http://www.pbase.com/johnewing/image/151293426.jpg)
(http://www.pbase.com/johnewing/image/151293425.jpg)
(http://www.pbase.com/johnewing/image/151293421.jpg)
Anyone recognize the church? Clue: getting there takes a bit of effort.
-
Engineering Art.
Should I put a roll of B&W through the Balda I wonder. I'll see how the light meter compares to my DSLR readout.
Hmmm.. The light meter is spot on when compared to my Canon 5D. The shutter appears to work nicely (There are appreciable differences in the various shutter speeds). Whether or not the actual speeds reflect the numbers on the dial is another matter.
Any advice on film choice and who best to develop/scan ? I'm 20 years out of touch. A C41 B&W film may give me plenty of latitude for any shutter-speed inconsistencies. (XP2?..is that still a viable thing?)
-
I still prefer my film and film cameras though, regardless of Lee’s commentary.
Is that because of the process involved, the loading of the film, knowing you have only 36 exposures, the wait until you see the results..etc, or the results themselves?
I admit that the wait, to see the results, is a feeling hard to replace.
From a results point of view though I honestly think 35mm film, printed traditionally, with dodging & burning, is inferior to a modern DSLR+Photoshop, but that 36exp limit helps focus the mind and it teaches you that every composition needs to be special.
The world moves on though, and the most popular photographers are now 15 year olds, taking photos with their phone and posting immediately to millions of followers on social media.
One day that will seem as "lame" as standing at a wooden tripod, under a piece of black cloth, while your subject remains motionless for the 15 second exposure.
Yes the world moves on, but I (fortunately) have no ambitions to be popular or to sell photographs. That lets me do what I want without being subject to the whims of fashion.
However, I do want to make work that is meaningful to me and, when I look at the pictures I like the most, they are more often made with film. Even that can be a bit misleading though, because another classification would say they are mostly made with manual focus rangefinders (and a 50mm lens). As I don’t currently have a digital rf, this tends me towards film. There are aesthetic elements of film too that I like, and I am not minded to replicate them digitally - that is a choice of course.
In terms of process, my current preference is to shoot 35mm mono film on my old Leica and photograph the negative with my Pentax K1 and 100mm macro lens. Then to print with my inkjet printer (giclee;)). I’m not averse to photoshop, but retain a fascination with the projected image recorded in silver - so process matters as well.
When I can afford an M10 then I may well buy one, but it’s not necessary! What I do like is seeing through an rf window.
Obviously, I also take pictures with the K1 and a couple of compacts - one digital and one scale focus film. I should put up a picture of the latter. It would also make a nice small man cave ornament.
Mike
-
(XP2?..is that still a viable thing?)
It is, and as good as ever.
-
We'll, since posing the original question, I've accumulated around 50 (yes fifty) film cameras!
My top limit has been £15 (including any postage) and I've not yet had one that doesn't work (although there are a few that have 'quirks').
Most are 35mm, but I've also got some 110 cameras (including the Pentax 110 SLR), a 828 Kodak bought by accident, and a small handful of 120 medium format cameras.
There's some dull plastic boxes from the 80s but some great hefty lumps from the 50s & 60s.
I've learned about dodgy photocells (and I've now got an Olympus Trip 35, and FED 50, with working cells - both have just come back from the Arctic Circle); I've also discovered the reasons to avoid cameras needing Mercury batteries (but I also took my Practika MTL5 away).
I've found a great team for processing & scanning my films (Snaps in Bournemouth).
I'm trying to stick to European cameras from now on, and am limiting myself now to cameras sold with cases.
I've learned a great deal with loads more avenues unexplored, and am having a ball!
Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Really pleased for you! Well done.
-
We'll, since posing the original question, I've accumulated around 50 (yes fifty) film cameras!
My top limit has been £15 (including any postage) and I've not yet had one that doesn't work (although there are a few that have 'quirks').
Most are 35mm, but I've also got some 110 cameras (including the Pentax 110 SLR), a 828 Kodak bought by accident, and a small handful of 120 medium format cameras.
There's some dull plastic boxes from the 80s but some great hefty lumps from the 50s & 60s.
I've learned about dodgy photocells (and I've now got an Olympus Trip 35, and FED 50, with working cells - both have just come back from the Arctic Circle); I've also discovered the reasons to avoid cameras needing Mercury batteries (but I also took my Practika MTL5 away).
I've found a great team for processing & scanning my films (Snaps in Bournemouth).
I'm trying to stick to European cameras from now on, and am limiting myself now to cameras sold with cases.
I've learned a great deal with loads more avenues unexplored, and am having a ball!
Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk
I'm fighting the addiction you seem to have acquired.
Even if you never use them you have some beautiful ornaments.
-
It takes N+1 to a whole new level!
Sent from my P01W using Tapatalk
-
I have a flavour of lomo that takes 120 film. DIana?
Seems like I haven't even put a film through it. The cost of development and printing are really high.
-
I have a flavour of lomo that takes 120 film. DIana?
Seems like I haven't even put a film through it. The cost of development and printing are really high.
£5 + postage both ways, for colour develop & scan to CD, doesn't seem high to me ??? ?*
OK print costs are extra, but they are effectively the same whether the source is medium format, 35mm or digital.
* Costs from Snaps in Bournemouth ( https://www.snapsphotoservices.com/medium-format-colour-film-processing-scanning.html (https://www.snapsphotoservices.com/medium-format-colour-film-processing-scanning.html) ) who I regularly use as they are reasonably priced, reliable and nice people.
-
I've played with Holgas in the past
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjtyFiJL
-
I've played with Holgas in the past
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjtyFiJL
I must admit that I don't get it.
I'd rather have a nice quality image that, if I wanted to, could be put through a Holga-type filter in order to degrade it for that specific look.
I use Instagram and Snapseed a lot ... but generally on high-quality images.
Each to their own though.
-
I've played with Holgas in the past
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjtyFiJL
I must admit that I don't get it.
I'd rather have a nice quality image that, if I wanted to, could be put through a Holga-type filter in order to degrade it for that specific look.
I use Instagram and Snapseed a lot ... but generally on high-quality images.
Each to their own though.
I use instagram
I don't understand why you'd want to degrade a quality image - as you say each to their own
-
I've played with Holgas in the past
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjtyFiJL
I must admit that I don't get it.
I'd rather have a nice quality image that, if I wanted to, could be put through a Holga-type filter in order to degrade it for that specific look.
I use Instagram and Snapseed a lot ... but generally on high-quality images.
Each to their own though.
I use instagram
I don't understand why you'd want to degrade a quality image - as you say each to their own
Holga/Lomo is basically the same thing. Taking hi-resolution film and running it through an optical "degrader" (aka a Holga camera) for a certain effect. The difference with doing it via an App (such as Instagram) is that you still have a hi-res original to use for other looks or effects.
Frustrates me a little *, when I think about the sheer amount of detail (and potential) being lost when shooting 120 film through one. It seems to cry out for 110 film/cameras not medium format.
* But then it's not me doing it so I'm not really frustrated.
-
As you say each to their own.
-
Frustrates me a little *, when I think about the sheer amount of detail (and potential) being lost when shooting 120 film through one. It seems to cry out for 110 film/cameras not medium format.
* But then it's not me doing it so I'm not really frustrated.
Indeed.
As far asI can tell it was a case of the inventors of Lomography discovering cheap (& incidentally crappy) cameras being made in China, a ready supply of inexpensive film - and they happened to be 120.
If 126 cartridges were still made then that would be a happy medium.
Lomography do sell 110 stuff at their usual mark up. I've got a few 110 cameras that all produce pretty dreadful results - I'm going to give my Pentax 110 SLR a whirl in the summer before writing it off completely.
Sent from my P01W using Tapatalk
-
I'm going to give my Pentax 110 SLR a whirl in the summer before writing it off completely.
I bought my Wife the boxed set of Pentax 110 SLR kit (must have been about 1980). I have some of the resultant prints from it to hand. Bloody awful. Not the camera's fault, just that awful concept of 110.
Remember the DISC film? Take a crappy small 110 negative and reduce its size even further.
Good for the LowTech look though I bet.
-
http://www.stephenschaub.com/Image.asp?ImageID=2557345&apid=1&gpid=1&ipid=1&AKey=9LPV946V (http://www.stephenschaub.com/Image.asp?ImageID=2557345&apid=1&gpid=1&ipid=1&AKey=9LPV946V)
Each to his own
-
https://www.danielgrantphotography.com/
-
Holga/Lomo is basically the same thing.
Not exactly - Holga is a make of camera, Lomography is a style of photography using 'toy cameras' derived from Lomographische AG.
-
http://www.stephenschaub.com/Image.asp?ImageID=2557345&apid=1&gpid=1&ipid=1&AKey=9LPV946V (http://www.stephenschaub.com/Image.asp?ImageID=2557345&apid=1&gpid=1&ipid=1&AKey=9LPV946V)
Each to his own
Really nice, interesting, work. Wasn't aware of him. Not exactly low-tech though, he's pushing the boundaries with film by the looks of it (as well as some exotic printing materials).
-
Holga/Lomo is basically the same thing.
Not exactly - Holga is a make of camera, Lomography is a style of photography using 'toy cameras' derived from Lomographische AG.
Lomo is a make of camera. Lomography concentrates on the copy of the Cosina CX2 that they made. I've got access to both, and they are capable of acceptable images if used correctly.
https://www.lomography.com/magazine/92695-cosina-cx-2
-
My mistake/misunderstanding - the term 'lomography' now seems to be used for all lo-fi photography. I have various 'toy camera' not one bought from a 'Lomography' shop. You can pick up a plastic camera from Ebay for a 1/4 of the price.
-
'Lomography' is a community like any other, but it's a commercialised one. It's possible to share Lomo Lca pictures outside the Lomography envelope.
We can compare images made using the Olympus XA family, https://www.flickr.com/groups/olympusxa/pool/page2
with those made using the Lomo Lca
https://www.flickr.com/groups/lomolca/pool/page2
-
http://www.stephenschaub.com/Image.asp?ImageID=2557345&apid=1&gpid=1&ipid=1&AKey=9LPV946V (http://www.stephenschaub.com/Image.asp?ImageID=2557345&apid=1&gpid=1&ipid=1&AKey=9LPV946V)
Each to his own
Really nice, interesting, work. Wasn't aware of him. Not exactly low-tech though, he's pushing the boundaries with film by the looks of it (as well as some exotic printing materials).
That’s probably true, but I tend to think that’s where film is today, rather than being a simple snapshot medium. Probably I inhabit the wrong circles, though I wish I was makIng work as nice as Stephen’s!
I use my Pentax dale to ‘scan’ and an person to print, albeit currently stored while I make some room.
-
'Lomography' is a community like any other, but it's a commercialised one. It's possible to share Lomo Lca pictures outside the Lomography envelope.
We can compare images made using the Olympus XA family, https://www.flickr.com/groups/olympusxa/pool/page2
with those made using the Lomo Lca
https://www.flickr.com/groups/lomolca/pool/page2
The XA was a quality camera. Those images prove it still is.
The Lomo images look very much like my Gran's holiday photos from the 1970s, double exposures and all.
When I think of Lomo images I tend to think of things like this..
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4784/39915073855_5fe2372c91_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23PabQx) (Taken on my Samsung Galaxy S7)
-
Some Holga 120 (TLR & N) images - £15 cameras off ebay choice of f8 or f11, 1/100sec exposure or bulb - no auto mode or aperture priority to help you get exposure right.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8044/8128579414_958137ac2a.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/doi6sW)Pacific Orca - Copenhagen (https://flic.kr/p/doi6sW) by ian (https://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/), on Flickr
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8289/7833784910_c8e28fff83.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/cWfck5)Connel Bridge (https://flic.kr/p/cWfck5) by ian (https://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/), on Flickr
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5184/5691549420_370e77c13f.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/9EWFmq)North Beach St (https://flic.kr/p/9EWFmq) by ian (https://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/), on Flickr
(https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6064/6150774596_ac60e171ae.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/anwjZS)Elf, Kibble Palace, Glasgow (https://flic.kr/p/anwjZS) by ian (https://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/), on Flickr
-
'Lomography' is a community like any other, but it's a commercialised one. It's possible to share Lomo Lca pictures outside the Lomography envelope.
We can compare images made using the Olympus XA family, https://www.flickr.com/groups/olympusxa/pool/page2
with those made using the Lomo Lca
https://www.flickr.com/groups/lomolca/pool/page2
The XA was a quality camera. Those images prove it still is.
The Lomo images look very much like my Gran's holiday photos from the 1970s, double exposures and all.
Which one is from the 'xa users group' and which from the 'lomo group'
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4757/40096779812_ca3559d408.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/246dtFS)Brussels (https://flic.kr/p/246dtFS) by Artūrs Kozulis (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52806889@N07/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4653/39711526375_9d40e6d2c0.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23vaXge)Kawaii car #35mmfilm #car #stickers #olympusxa (https://flic.kr/p/23vaXge) by Andrew Pinzon (https://www.flickr.com/photos/153917263@N02/), on Flickr
-
Some Holga 120 (TLR & N) images - £15 cameras off ebay choice of f8 or f11, 1/100sec exposure or bulb - no auto mode or aperture priority to help you get exposure right.
Yebbut ..exactly my point. These are almost well exposed, detailed, images. I don't get the point. What is the point of Lomo? Is it the satisfaction of actually getting any image?
The final car image is catastrophically awful. If you are a fan of this image then my Gran has a caseload of such crap. The other images could all have been improved with a better camera. A crap camera adds nothing, in my opinion of course, to these images.
OK, some Lomo/Holga is beautiful..but nothing that can't be created in "photoshop".
Why Lomo? Why not Smartphone? Why an overpriced and laborious process for a (technically) low quality image?*
* That can be reproduced effortlessly with a phone.
-
OK, some Lomo/Holga is beautiful..but nothing that can't be created in "photoshop".
Why Lomo? Why not Smartphone? Why an overpriced and laborious process for a (technically) low quality image?*
Because it is the journey, not the destination that matters. For the same reason I want to play with ferricyanide and salt prints.
-
Some Holga 120 (TLR & N) images - £15 cameras off ebay choice of f8 or f11, 1/100sec exposure or bulb - no auto mode or aperture priority to help you get exposure right.
Yebbut ..exactly my point. These are almost well exposed, detailed, images. I don't get the point. What is the point of Lomo? Is it the satisfaction of actually getting any image?
The final car image is catastrophically awful. If you are a fan of this image then my Gran has a caseload of such crap. The other images could all have been improved with a better camera. A crap camera adds nothing, in my opinion of course, to these images.
OK, some Lomo/Holga is beautiful..but nothing that can't be created in "photoshop".
Why Lomo? Why not Smartphone? Why an overpriced and laborious process for a (technically) low quality image?*
* That can be reproduced effortlessly with a phone.
Sorry, I'm only just starting to understand what your saying - Yes (for me) it's the capture, not knowing what you've got until you develop the film and scan the negatives (I don't have a dark room to do processing). Outside of cropping, contrast and level adjustments, and desaturation I rarely do any digital processing (not even with digital images).
I like David's comment about it being 'the journey not the destination'.
-
Right then. I'm going to wrap a few layers of clingfilm round my phone, take 12 photos, but not look at them for a week. I'll then give £6 to the cashier in Boots chemist.
That seems to adequately recreate the Lomo experience.
:demon:
-
A couple of years ago I did some work with a group of local artists oop on t'Moors and they all cared about process as much as destination - that included the digital imaging as well as non-digital artists.
-
OK, some Lomo/Holga is beautiful..but nothing that can't be created in "photoshop".
I'm not sure about this but my feeling is that it's "fake" to use software to apply a certain look or effect versus something that comes out of the camera as is.
-
The history is quite interesting, with Lomography dating from 1991 in Vienna. https://www.lomography.com/about/history
That was well before digital cameras, never mind camera-phones. So Lomography isn't so much a rejection of digital technology, as a questioning of technical perfection. The aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union might also be part of the counter-cultural artistic statement.
There are doubtless many arguments to be had about the current counter-cultural status of Lomography in relation to the digital world. But it seems to have started as a 'punk' movement, in a largely analogue age.
One interesting point is that the Lomography movement enlisted the help of Vladimir Putin to continue production pf the L-ca when he was Deputy Mayor of St Petersburg, about the time the Condoleeza Rice first met him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zmPGjF0vAU
The only reason I bought Heather an L-ca was because the Cosina CX1 I'd bought her in 1983 had jammed. That was a flat battery though, and it works now.
-
Right then. I'm going to wrap a few layers of clingfilm round my phone, take 12 photos, but not look at them for a week. I'll then give £6 to the cashier in Boots chemist.
That seems to adequately recreate the Lomo experience.
:demon:
There's an app to help you with this : https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/12/15958632/gudak-camera-kodak-retro-photo-app
Tapatalk puts this signature here, not me!
-
Right then. I'm going to wrap a few layers of clingfilm round my phone, take 12 photos, but not look at them for a week. I'll then give £6 to the cashier in Boots chemist.
That seems to adequately recreate the Lomo experience.
:demon:
Seeing as how you mention money -
Let's say I buy a Krappy Kamera off eBay for £10, a film for £5, and get 36 shots processed and scanned for £5 - I've spent £20. Now put that camera in the landfill* and repeat 20 times - I've now spent £400 and got 720 shots, a few of which might be ok.
Or I could walk down to Jessops, drop £400 on a low end 'good' digital camera and take 720 shots, a few of which might be ok.
(*or resell them for what you paid)
More realistically, one could buy a couple of Not-Quite-So-Krappy Kameras for say £25 each, not bin them, and shoot off 20 rolls, and get the scanned, coming to a grand total of £250, for which I imagine one could buy a previous season's low end 'good' digital camera.
I suspect (although I'm no photographer) you'd learn more about the 'art' of photography from the Krappy Kameras, but more about the science from the digital ones. From that point on maybe you decide if you want to pursue the journey, or the destination.
Tapatalk puts this signature here, not me!
-
Right then. I'm going to wrap a few layers of clingfilm round my phone, take 12 photos, but not look at them for a week. I'll then give £6 to the cashier in Boots chemist.
That seems to adequately recreate the Lomo experience.
:demon:
Seeing as how you mention money -
Let's say I buy a Krappy Kamera off eBay for £10, a film for £5, and get 36 shots processed and scanned for £5 - I've spent £20. Now put that camera in the landfill* and repeat 20 times - I've now spent £400 and got 720 shots, a few of which might be ok.
Or I could walk down to Jessops, drop £400 on a low end 'good' digital camera and take 720 shots, a few of which might be ok.
(*or resell them for what you paid)
More realistically, one could buy a couple of Not-Quite-So-Krappy Kameras for say £25 each, not bin them, and shoot off 20 rolls, and get the scanned, coming to a grand total of £250, for which I imagine one could buy a previous season's low end 'good' digital camera.
I suspect (although I'm no photographer) you'd learn more about the 'art' of photography from the Krappy Kameras, but more about the science from the digital ones. From that point on maybe you decide if you want to pursue the journey, or the destination.
Tapatalk puts this signature here, not me!
I develop my own black and white and then scan the negatives. You can buy bulk rolls of 35mm film and 'roll your own' reducing the cost even further.
The local photographers shop does 'develop only' for colour films for £2.99 35mm and £3.99 120mm
-
OK, some Lomo/Holga is beautiful..but nothing that can't be created in "photoshop".
I'm not sure about this but my feeling is that it's "fake" to use software to apply a certain look or effect versus something that comes out of the camera as is.
Every image is "post-processed". Different Labs produce different prints from film. Different papers..etc. Always was, always will be. There's literally no such thing as "out of the camera as is" apart from the negative or RAW file, both of which are a starting point for how the image MAY possibly end up.
RAW files are naturally poor images, they need to be in order to capture as much information as possible. I'd say the same about film negatives. There's work to be done to extract the best from them.
Transparencies are the only true "Out of camera as is" but, unless you go to a slideshow..it's impossible to see the results. Printing from them means you lose the "as is".
JPGs are heavily processed, it's just that you have little artistic control over what that process is. Paper prints look how the LAB judge they should look,
I'd say that, once you have a nice composition, the art is actually in the post-processing.
No camera can ever hope to reproduce what the human eye (actually the human brain thought it..) saw. Post-processing allows you to create something that looks like how it felt at the time, and this may be far from "as is".
Black and White is perhaps the clearest example of an image not even remotely representing reality, and yet, when done correctly, it's high art, and seems to depict reality in a way that colour just distracts from.
Just opinions but "out of camera as is" is too simplistic a way to look at it.
-
OK, some Lomo/Holga is beautiful..but nothing that can't be created in "photoshop".
I'm not sure about this but my feeling is that it's "fake" to use software to apply a certain look or effect versus something that comes out of the camera as is.
Every image is "post-processed". Different Labs produce different prints from film. Different papers..etc. Always was, always will be. There's literally no such thing as "out of the camera as is".
JPGs are heavily processed, it's just that you have little artistic control over what that process is.
I'd say that, once you have a nice composition, the art is actually in the post-processing.
No camera can ever hope to reproduce what the human eye (actually the human brain thought it..) saw. Post-processing allows you to create something that looks like how it felt at the time.
Black and White is perhaps the clearest example of an image not even remotely representing reality, and yet, when done correctly, it's high art, and seems to depict reality in a way that colour just distracts from.
Just opinions but "out of camera as is" is too simplistic a way to look at it.
Well yes, but
A lot of it is pretty grim stuff really. At the end of the day we all work to our own ‘rules’ and that’s fine. I really like Stephen Schaub’s work, and he uses a lot more digital manipulation than me. Hey Ho.
-
Transparencies are the only true "Out of camera as is" but, unless you go to a slideshow..it's impossible to see the results. Printing from them means you lose the "as is".
Nope. There's a lot you can do with processing.
It's all fake really. An attempt at representation.
IMHO the only criterion should be, "do you like the image?" - however it was produced. If you spend time wondering whether they've "cheated" by manipulating a digital image then you've rather missed the point.
-
Transparencies are the only true "Out of camera as is" but, unless you go to a slideshow..it's impossible to see the results. Printing from them means you lose the "as is".
Nope. There's a lot you can do with processing.
It's all fake really. An attempt at representation.
IMHO the only criterion should be, "do you like the image?" - however it was produced. If you spend time wondering whether they've "cheated" by manipulating a digital image then you've rather missed the point.
That’s a simple and consistent approach, but as a consequence we lose documentary photography. I prefer a harder to define approach, albeit it creates blurred edges (staying on topic then).
The idea of a photo as a document can easily be rubbished if someone is so minded, yet it retains real power and value. Documentary work has value as evidence in all sorts of ways - look at Dorothea Lange, James Ravillious, Robert Frank, David Hurn and Andre Kertesz as a start and Diane Arbus if you can take it, before you even get to forensic evidence and family snaps. Recall what has happened to Steve McCurry’s reputation when it became evident that he was passing off photographically derived art as as photography. A whole form of expression has been devalued in the wider consciousness as a direct consequence of the simplicity and ubiquitous use of digital manipulation techniques, which continues to be actively encouraged by magazines desperate for sales and website for hits.
So, I return to the quaint notion that the image the lens casts is of paramount importance - if you need to add or remove to make a decent picture then either throw it away or stop calling it a photograph as it wasn’t written by light. Then you need to manage yourself in how far you want to push the sliders as you process. This still leaves room for expression, or at least more than I can do justice to, but it seems to be not enough or at least to not deliver enough ‘winners’ today.
Rant mode off:)
-
So, I return to the quaint notion that the image the lens casts is of paramount importance - if you need to add or remove to make a decent picture then either throw it away or stop calling it a photograph as it wasn’t written by light. Then you need to manage yourself in how far you want to push the sliders as you process. This still leaves room for expression, or at least more than I can do justice to, but it seems to be not enough or at least to not deliver enough ‘winners’ today.
I don't think that's at all quaint, but my point was that the "written by light" bit itself involves some inevitable processing of the image whether it's chemistry based or digital (unless it's a camera obscura). There is no such thing as a "true" image - the response of the capture medium greatly affects the image. The best you can do by way of authenticity is to say that there has been minimal "post-capture" processing which, as was stated above, only occurs in transparencies.
-
IMHO the only criterion should be, "do you like the image?" - however it was produced. If you spend time wondering whether they've "cheated" by manipulating a digital image then you've rather missed the point.
Exactly this.
There's a huge assumption that "documentary" photographs haven't been "dodged & burned" (either in a darkroom or digitally). When you print a photo you have a choice of papers that affect contrast, amongst other things.
I'm struggling to think of a reason NOT to post-process an image actually. I've printed in Darkrooms and I spend a lot of time in Lightroom/Photoshop now. I've always considered the original image as a starting point.
Here's a genuine question for you sojournermike. I shoot RAW images, how, and why, would I present an image "out of camera, as is" without some "post"?
-
I'd suggest that a meaningful 'out of camera' image would be an image file, in whatever format, cryptographically signed by the camera. How you present that is unimportant, as there are countless ways of moving files around that all have their advantages and disadvantages in different contexts. Verifying the signature and rendering or otherwise analysing the image should be left as an exercise for the reader.
This is all going to become very important just as soon as there's a big court case that hinges on convincingly faked video evidence. It's slightly baffling how little support for this sort of thing there is in the industry.
Everything else is using the camera as part of the toolchain for some greater purpose, whether that's creating art or sampling a spectrogram, and considering the camera in isolation is naive.
-
Hi Lee
I haven’t said out of camera. I know that’s a meaningless construct - even if you shoot jpeg only or transparency film there are plenty of different output options by changing the look or film, and that’s before you adjust exposure etc.
I also haven’t suggested no dodging and burning or or contrast/colour adjustment. There can be all sorts of good reasons for those adjustments to be made. I have some ground rules for myself, largely about moving things around inside the image, but they’re mine. If I want to move stuff around or really make something different I’ll call it photographically derives art. But yes, of course there is processing between the light falling on the sensor and the print, whether it’s chemical, electronic and automatic or directed by me.
So the line falls somewhere on the, ‘I know it when I see it’ spectrum, I.e. difficult. It does matter though if we want to use images in news reporting that are more than just sensationalism or propaganda (and content matters too).
I’m with Kim too on the potential advantages of cryptographically authenticating raw files at least, and carrying that through the chain so that final images can be verified when it is important. Quite obviously, it doesn’t matter for my pictures in any significant or objective sense.
Finally, given some of what has appeared in press photo of the year and other competitions - wildlife springs to mind, but there are many more - I think this stuff matters enough to discuss, even if we don’t always agree.
A little light reading on Steve McCurry and a failure of transparency
https://petapixel.com/2016/05/06/botched-steve-mccurry-print-leads-photoshop-scandal/ (https://petapixel.com/2016/05/06/botched-steve-mccurry-print-leads-photoshop-scandal/)
https://petapixel.com/2016/05/26/photoshopped-photos-emerge-steve-mccurry-scandal/ (https://petapixel.com/2016/05/26/photoshopped-photos-emerge-steve-mccurry-scandal/)
‘I now realize how confusing it must be for people who think I’m still a photojournalist.’
-
So, I return to the quaint notion that the image the lens casts is of paramount importance - if you need to add or remove to make a decent picture then either throw it away or stop calling it a photograph as it wasn’t written by light.
Why draw the line at the lens? Choosing to use a shit lens to produce a specific effect (or smearing vaseline on the perimeter of a good lens for a similar effect) is still processing the image as it is formed. If you need to use a polarising filter to produce a decent picture should you throw it away or not call it a photograph? In fact why stop there? Once you've rendered a 3D scene on a 2D medium you've distorted it. Processing of the resulting image starts as soon as you choose the viewpoint, the framing, moving things around in the scene and altering or choosing the lighting.
-
Ansel Adams: the negative is the score, the print is the performance. I reckon he'd have loved Photoshop.
-
Ansel Adams: the negative is the score, the print is the performance.
I like that. Sums it up perfectly*
* His full quote was probably, "The negative is the score, the print is the performance and this camera is effing heavy"
-
I'd tend to view the performance in Lomography as the organisation itself. Some students taking pictures on cheap cameras in 1991 seems a curious beginning for something that people are still writing about. They've also commissioned an impressive amount of manufacturing.
With its roots in the pre-digital age, it tracks developments online. I think that the main issue is validation. Printing was how photography was disseminated for much of its history. Editors were gatekeepers, only a few could afford 'vanity' publishing, and they were derided.
As printing became more accessible, a 'punk' ethos came into being, with an emphasis of the 'lo-fi', in all its forms. Only the 'coolest' made it through to the mainstream though. Those 'coolest' persisted into the digital era, as curators of the ever-accelerating torrent of content.
Using analogue media seems as good a way as any to create a barrier to entry. How easy that is to police is another matter.
I'm not a big fan of photography as such. I've mainly used it to record activity. That has the advantage that I've seen some of my photos on the printed page.
-
Ansel Adams: the negative is the score, the print is the performance.
I like that. Sums it up perfectly*
* His full quote was probably, "The negative is the score, the print is the performance and this camera is effing heavy"
;D :thumbsup:
-
I'd tend to view the performance in Lomography as the organisation itself. Some students taking pictures on cheap cameras in 1991 seems a curious beginning for something that people are still writing about. They've also commissioned an impressive amount of manufacturing.
With its roots in the pre-digital age, it tracks developments online. I think that the main issue is validation. Printing was how photography was disseminated for much of its history. Editors were gatekeepers, only a few could afford 'vanity' publishing, and they were derided.
As printing became more accessible, a 'punk' ethos came into being, with an emphasis of the 'lo-fi', in all its forms. Only the 'coolest' made it through to the mainstream though. Those 'coolest' persisted into the digital era, as curators of the ever-accelerating torrent of content.
Using analogue media seems as good a way as any to create a barrier to entry. How easy that is to police is another matter.
I'm not a big fan of photography as such. I've mainly used it to record activity. That has the advantage that I've seen some of my photos on the printed page.
Which makes it a movement of sorts - probably the most likely form of photography to end up in the Tate Modern. Or has it already?
-
Ansel Adams: the negative is the score, the print is the performance.
I like that. Sums it up perfectly*
* His full quote was probably, "The negative is the score, the print is the performance and this camera is effing heavy"
Answl’s a good example - beautiful constructed propaganda:)
-
Ansel Adams: the negative is the score, the print is the performance.
I like that. Sums it up perfectly*
* His full quote was probably, "The negative is the score, the print is the performance and this camera is effing heavy"
Answl’s a good example - beautiful constructed propaganda:)
Nope. Not propaganda. That's just how photography is.
You need to make a judgement call on every image when printing or, nowadays, when converting a RAW image to a final image. There's artistic interpretation in every part of the process*
* As in:
- Camera choice
- Lens choice
- Film choice
- Camera settings
- Filters
- "post processing"
- Darkroom lab/chemical choices
- Paper choices
- Enlarger "processing" (dodging/burning/exposure)
- Hue, Saturation, Cropping, HDR, Stacking
- .....an infinite number of options
I'm on another forum, not cycling or photography related. There is a "Photograph of the day" thread. This is where people with no interest in photography post photos from their ancient phones and crap cameras.
They are mainly unmodified, "straight from camera" as you can get. They are, without any exception, fucking dreadful. I mean fucking dreadful on every level, from start to finish. Subject matter, composition, exposure, level horizons, blur, contrast...just everything is bad. Trust me, you don't want to see "straight out of camera". Photoshop is a blessing, not a curse.
-
I'd tend to view the performance in Lomography as the organisation itself. Some students taking pictures on cheap cameras in 1991 seems a curious beginning for something that people are still writing about. They've also commissioned an impressive amount of manufacturing.
With its roots in the pre-digital age, it tracks developments online. I think that the main issue is validation. Printing was how photography was disseminated for much of its history. Editors were gatekeepers, only a few could afford 'vanity' publishing, and they were derided.
As printing became more accessible, a 'punk' ethos came into being, with an emphasis of the 'lo-fi', in all its forms. Only the 'coolest' made it through to the mainstream though. Those 'coolest' persisted into the digital era, as curators of the ever-accelerating torrent of content.
Using analogue media seems as good a way as any to create a barrier to entry. How easy that is to police is another matter.
I'm not a big fan of photography as such. I've mainly used it to record activity. That has the advantage that I've seen some of my photos on the printed page.
Ditto
Not many but I have pictures in this book (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Plastic-Cameras-Chris-Gatcum/dp/1907708405)
This pic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/3900064052/in/album-72157621848863066/)made it into Cycling Weekly
and a few other have made it into other cycling mags :)
-
This pic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/3900064052/in/album-72157621848863066/)made it into Cycling Weekly
Question. Was that a "Toy" camera or a contemporary film camera? The image looks distinctly late 1980s/early 1990s rather than a deliberate "Lomo" image from the 21st century (unless it was a fancy dress event).
-
This pic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/acf_windy/3900064052/in/album-72157621848863066/)made it into Cycling Weekly
Question. Was that a "Toy" camera or a contemporary film camera? The image looks distinctly late 1980s/early 1990s rather than a deliberate "Lomo" image from the 21st century (unless it was a fancy dress event).
That one was taken from using a Rollei 35B (and Kodachrome) - just replying to ESL post with some of the pics I've had published.
-
I'm now about 8 shots into a roll of XP2 B&W film on my Balda-Matic.
It's reminded me why I buy Digital cameras.
1 - You need to be extremely careful what you take photos of, you only have 36 attempts.
2 - I have no idea if I captured a decent image, or ANY image.
3 - I know full well that, even if I captured a great image, it will be no better than if I'd taken it on any of my cameras (or even my phone).
4 - It's bloody expensive. The film plus high-res scans will cost the same as a 32Gb Sandisk Extreme memory card (36 images vs 2,000 reusable "image spaces")
I'll stick with it, just this final time, but I truly don't see any advantage in it beyond the novelty...and the novelty has worn off.
-
You think that's bad, try large format :)
-
You think that's bad, try large format :)
Only if it's large format Polaroid (I'd love to do a few portraits on 8x10 Polaroid*)
*Don't blink because it costs £17 if you blink.
-
Why not go the whole hog with a 24x20 Polaroid?
https://youtu.be/Qt-NraquF5E
Edit: Why not? Because if the comments are to believed there's no film/developer left.
-
I'm now about 8 shots into a roll of XP2 B&W film on my Balda-Matic.
It's reminded me why I buy Digital cameras.
1 - You need to be extremely careful what you take photos of, you only have 36 attempts.
2 - I have no idea if I captured a decent image, or ANY image.
3 - I know full well that, even if I captured a great image, it will be no better than if I'd taken it on any of my cameras (or even my phone).
4 - It's bloody expensive. The film plus high-res scans will cost the same as a 32Gb Sandisk Extreme memory card (36 images vs 2,000 reusable "image spaces")
I'll stick with it, just this final time, but I truly don't see any advantage in it beyond the novelty...and the novelty has worn off.
Last time I tried 35mm, after each shot I would look at the back of the camera and think "WTF?"
BTW, that's apparently how you tell a pro from an amateur. Pros just shoot & shoot, but amateurs shoot & peek.
-
I love this thread.
As someone who last shot on emulsion film on 24.10.2003 when the last three Concords flew in to Heathrow, and having in the last couple of days unearthed (from the cupboard under my stairs) my Dad's Yaschica rangefinder and a Praktika SLR - which has 'Harrow School of Photography' engraved onto the prism housing (I have honestly no idea how or why I'm in possession of that SLR).
Lee's analogy of wrapping a smartphone in some clingfilm made me smile.
Meanwhile...
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3104/2638781083_d17ee44f45_z.jpg?zz=1) (https://flic.kr/p/52brFz)
-
I'm now about 8 shots into a roll of XP2 B&W film on my Balda-Matic.
It's reminded me why I buy Digital cameras.
1 - You need to be extremely careful what you take photos of, you only have 36 attempts.
2 - I have no idea if I captured a decent image, or ANY image.
3 - I know full well that, even if I captured a great image, it will be no better than if I'd taken it on any of my cameras (or even my phone).
4 - It's bloody expensive. The film plus high-res scans will cost the same as a 32Gb Sandisk Extreme memory card (36 images vs 2,000 reusable "image spaces")
I'll stick with it, just this final time, but I truly don't see any advantage in it beyond the novelty...and the novelty has worn off.
But it will also be no worse.
-
Just found two SLRs in by old camera bag, a practika BX20 sans lense and my first self winder a canon EOS 3000 with 28-80mm lens. The latter was quite capable for close ups.
-
I'll stick with it, just this final time, but I truly don't see any advantage in it beyond the novelty...and the novelty has worn off.
I find that switching modes revitalises my photography. Be it digital to film, 35mm to 120, fixed lens to zoom, P&S to (D)SLR. You might call it novelty, but I disagree. I think that the different way you think about the shot changes the way you think about and take the photograph, and the effect lingers beyond the "novelty" period.
-
Just remembered that I have a 35mm lomo, 120 lomo, a french boxcamera and an om10. None of which I have run a full roll of film through.
Trying to reason why I have them.