Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,338   Posts: 1,537,722   Online: 793
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45
  1. #11
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by X. Phot. View Post
    Thank you Marc for the clarification. That puts things in a different light.

    My opinion on that is fairly basic . . . I just see it as a business concern trying to make a go-of-it using existing products and services. Though the video presentation does make a plug for an unrelated cellphone software application, it is still primarily about the film cameras. Does it matter that this concern is selling a line of cameras made up of inexpensive film cameras? After all, there was another concern, a "big-name concern" that manufactured cheap & inexpensive cameras for many decades. They made a science out of making photography affordable. Cardboard cameras, tin cameras, and inexpensive wood box cameras. I don't recall seeing articles debating their making a $1.00 camera, for example. I'm perty sure at the time, the general public appreciated having access to an inexpensive solution to photography. I don't see this Lomoscopy being any different. It sells cameras, film, processing services, it creates jobs, and fills a niche in the market. All is good.
    Problem is, though, that Dianas, Holgas and other toys are dead-end products with zero flexibility. They're also not cheap. Lots of operable 35mm gear that's priced under this stuff. No? Check these prices:

    http://canada.shop.lomography.com/cameras

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    965
    Images
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Problem is, though, that Dianas, Holgas and other toys are dead-end products with zero flexibility.
    Apparently, the Lomography folks feel that is basically not true. And do what if it is? They have their limitations. Many cameras sold through the years have had limitations.


    They're also not cheap. Lots of operable 35mm gear that's priced under this stuff. No? Check these prices:

    http://canada.shop.lomography.com/cameras
    Which would be sad if the Lomography users were interested in conventional 35mm gear, which it appears they are not. Is that what makes people mad? Admittedly, you can also buy "vintage" Dianas and Diana clones for a few bucks. You have to search for them, though, since they lack convenient distribution through Urban Outfitters. But I also don't think it necessarily makes sense to say that new gear is overpriced when used gear is cheaper. I mean, one expects used gear to be cheaper; it's used. And: most models of "real" 35mm cameras are out of production, so which is really the dead end? And did the Lomo folks sell on the promise of being the least-expensive option? Is cheapness the goal?

    People are buying cameras, film, having fun with it. This is good.

  3. #13
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Moopheus View Post
    Apparently, the Lomography folks feel that is basically not true. And do what if it is? They have their limitations. Many cameras sold through the years have had limitations.




    Which would be sad if the Lomography users were interested in conventional 35mm gear, which it appears they are not. Is that what makes people mad? Admittedly, you can also buy "vintage" Dianas and Diana clones for a few bucks. You have to search for them, though, since they lack convenient distribution through Urban Outfitters. But I also don't think it necessarily makes sense to say that new gear is overpriced when used gear is cheaper. I mean, one expects used gear to be cheaper; it's used. And: most models of "real" 35mm cameras are out of production, so which is really the dead end? And did the Lomo folks sell on the promise of being the least-expensive option? Is cheapness the goal?

    People are buying cameras, film, having fun with it. This is good.
    Whatever. Lomos are mostly an impulse buy. Either they break or poor results coupled with film/development costs prompt shooters to ditch them. They're not doing much for film sales or labs in my area. Anyone serious about film shooting quickly moves on to one of those "out of production" 35mm SLRs that are almost free now. The goal is keeping Lomo stores afloat by pushing merch out the door.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    46
    I'm not one to defend lomography at all but I do feel the need to point this fact out: All cameras have limitations.

    Any kind of equipment has limitations. People, as customers have to decide what limitations they can work with when they buy things. For example, my stereo amplifier has limitations. It's maximum power output is about 36 watts per channel, so it won't be able to drive a pair of low efficiency speakers to fill a large room with loud volumes of sound and since it's a tube amp, it won't amplify DC because it isn't direct coupled. Neither are a requirement so I can live with that. If I needed higher power output and the ability to amplify direct current, I'd have bought something like one of the direct coupled power amps that Marantz made back in the lave 70s or designed and built something of my own.

  5. #15
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    I'm not one to defend lomography at all but I do feel the need to point this fact out: All cameras have limitations.

    And some cameras are pretty much all limitations. Holgas and 35mm toys were fun when cheap dev/print service was available a few years back but not now.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    965
    Images
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    . Either they break or poor results coupled with film/development costs prompt shooters to ditch them.
    I'll bet my 70s-vintage Diana works as well as it did when new!



    They're not doing much for film sales or labs in my area. Anyone serious about film shooting quickly moves on to one of those "out of production" 35mm SLRs that are almost free now.
    So if someone got interested in film because of Lomo, and then got a better camera, Lomo is bad? (Is everyone in Ontario always so durned serious?)

    I moved on to an Agfa Clack.

    [/QUOTE]

  7. #17
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Moopheus View Post
    I'll bet my 70s-vintage Diana works as well as it did when new!





    So if someone got interested in film because of Lomo, and then got a better camera, Lomo is bad? (Is everyone in Ontario always so durned serious?)

    I moved on to an Agfa Clack.
    [/QUOTE]

    Gateway drugs are always the problem, right?

  8. #18
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,556
    Images
    15
    The link is cryptic. What is being referred to? Is there another that has been omitted??
    Last edited by Poisson Du Jour; 04-16-2012 at 05:53 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  9. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    60
    A lot of the "hipsters" using these plastic cams are way below my age but if it leads them to become obsessed with better quality film cameras and particularly LF cameras and they help keep the market alive then that has to be a good thing. I see lots of bright young things coming out of camera stores holding negatives taken in their weird plastic camera and hope they are the next generation of quality film camera lovers. The iphone ap thing is starting to annoy me, people are loading their shots in sites dedicated to film shots, get out or get a real camera.

  10. #20
    amsp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    159
    I agree with above sentiment. The first thing I saw when I went to a new lab a couple of weeks ago were two young girls handing in their negatives taken with a Holga, if that's what it takes for labs to stay open and for the next generation to be excited about film photography then I'm all for it.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin