Author Topic: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm  (Read 5999 times)

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #50 on: March 15, 2018, 12:57:50 pm »
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:
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #51 on: March 15, 2018, 01:13:18 pm »
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.

Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #52 on: March 15, 2018, 04:07:21 pm »
Quote
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.


Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #53 on: March 15, 2018, 07:20:52 pm »
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.

MikeFromLFE

  • Previously known as Millimole
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #54 on: March 16, 2018, 09:33:32 am »
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!
Too many angry people - breathe & relax.

MikeFromLFE

  • Previously known as Millimole
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #55 on: March 16, 2018, 09:51:24 am »
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!
Too many angry people - breathe & relax.

IanDG

  • The p*** artist formerly known as 'Windy'
    • My Instagram
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #56 on: March 16, 2018, 02:22:54 pm »
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

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #57 on: March 16, 2018, 07:56:32 pm »
Quote
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.
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #58 on: March 16, 2018, 08:04:02 pm »
Quote
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.

nicknack

  • Hornblower
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #59 on: March 17, 2018, 11:29:53 am »
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.
There's no vibrations, but wait.

Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #60 on: March 17, 2018, 04:00:33 pm »
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:)

nicknack

  • Hornblower
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #61 on: March 17, 2018, 04:21:37 pm »
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.
There's no vibrations, but wait.

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #62 on: March 17, 2018, 06:50:48 pm »
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"?
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #63 on: March 17, 2018, 07:49:12 pm »
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.
To ride the Windcheetah, first, you must embrace the cantilever...

Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #64 on: March 17, 2018, 09:10:33 pm »
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/2016/05/26/photoshopped-photos-emerge-steve-mccurry-scandal/

‘I now realize how confusing it must be for people who think I’m still a photojournalist.’


Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #65 on: March 18, 2018, 07:54:40 am »
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.
Quote from: tiermat
that's not science, it's semantics.

T42

  • Tea tank
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #66 on: March 18, 2018, 09:26:33 am »
Ansel Adams: the negative is the score, the print is the performance. I reckon he'd have loved Photoshop.
I've dusted all those old bottles and set them up straight.

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #67 on: March 18, 2018, 11:50:53 am »
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"
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #68 on: March 18, 2018, 04:10:25 pm »
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.

T42

  • Tea tank
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #69 on: March 18, 2018, 04:25:42 pm »
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've dusted all those old bottles and set them up straight.

T42

  • Tea tank
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #70 on: March 18, 2018, 04:32:48 pm »
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?
I've dusted all those old bottles and set them up straight.

Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #71 on: March 18, 2018, 06:02:46 pm »
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:)

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #72 on: March 18, 2018, 06:41:56 pm »
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.
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.

IanDG

  • The p*** artist formerly known as 'Windy'
    • My Instagram
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #73 on: March 18, 2018, 07:42:46 pm »
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

This pic made it into Cycling Weekly

and a few other have made it into other cycling mags :)

LEE

  • "Shut Up Jens" - Legs.
Re: Lomography /Low-tech 35mm
« Reply #74 on: March 18, 2018, 10:31:33 pm »

This pic 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). 
Some people say I'm self-obsessed but that's enough about them.