|
|
|
-
Video in today's "Age" makes me less annoyed by Lomography...
http://media.theage.com.au/technolog...e-3218916.html - especially as it's presented as an alternative to Instamatic!! How that can be valued at more than all of Kodak, presents a Capitalist mystery, the likes of which I will never understand...
Marc!
-
 Originally Posted by munz6869
It's little more than an attempt to "brand" film photography with a sprinkle of aspirational hipster dust. It's doing nada for surviving pro labs with struggling film lines.
-
What an ingenious idea, using CAMERAS to take PHOTOS! My goodness people annoy me... I had a few minutes to have a look on Facebook before dinner, which I haven't done in a long time... My mrs was amazed at just how angry with the whole world those 5 minutes had made me, every idiot and his dog thinking they've stumbled onto the newest, greatest idea, taking photos of their dinner with a rainbow cast and a tattered edge frame... People are so stupid... I'm going back to using Facebook to just tell me family what I'm up to... I might even use a real camera to take some photos of that family too...
____________________________________________
My goal in life, is to be as good a person as my dog already thinks I am.
-
Originally Posted by munz6869
Marc, You were able to extract information from the presentation that I was not. Is it possible that you posted the incorrect link. The presentation I watched was about a business concern in London that sold cameras and provided service. Selling product and services to customers is typical of most business concerns. Though the Kodak name was mentioned once as I recall, that's no reason for concern. Many manufacturers of film and cameras will still find a ways to profit, keeping these products and services on the market, even if it's just in a small way.
I didn't see anything about Kodak Instamatic cameras either, and that's why I suspect we're not watching the same video. I recall the Instamatic cameras perty much fizzling out in the late 70's. At least I don't recall much of anybody in the 80's using them. By then most everyone I knew was using 35mm film one way or another. How Lomo cameras would be an alternative to Instamatics is beyond me, having occupied different time-frames. Yet another reason I suspect we're not watching the same video.
-
I think that he was comparing the recent sale of an App (Instagram) to the alleged value of Kodak.
If so, I agree.
Mind you, I wonder what Rubic's Cube was valued at in 1982?
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
To clarify,
I don't disagree with the ephemeral hipster critique of Lomography - I was so disappointed by the plastic rubbish when I went to the Lomo shop in Vienna a few years ago - I think it's the first time EVER I've been in some kind of photographic shop without buying something! However, in the light of iphone app 'Instagram' selling (to Facebook) for a reported US$1billion dollars, a ridiculous number by any measure (and more than the net worth of Kodak), I would much rather see any kind of media about film, than an iphone app that pretends to be film... in summation: this is a crazy world sometimes.
Marc!
-
I'm annoyed by the constant use of 'film' borders -> especially colour photos with an 'Ilford' label 
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by X. Phot.
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.
Really. I don't see why some people here make such a fuss about Lomography. They've figured out a way to get film into the hands of lots of people who might otherwise not see it or care. This is more than Kodak, Fuji, or most of us, for that matter, have managed to do of late. So what if it's just "marketing to hipsters"? Many here complain that Kodak doesn't do enough to market film, and when someone actually does that, they complain even more!
-
The next fashion craze maybe Leicaography, but the shop would have to be in Bond Street.
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
Francis Bacon
|
|
Adv Reply
