Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,920   Posts: 1,522,069   Online: 787
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1
    Andy K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny Southend, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Images
    81

    BBC story on 20th anniversary of Lomography.

    Interesting take on things. I agree the Lomo LC-A is a remarkable little camera, I've had one since 1993. But I think the writer saying that Lomography was an early form of Instagram is missing the point that Instagram, Hipstamatic etc. are all digital versions of Lomography and were all created to copy the Lomo/film/xpro 'look'.

    It was a nervous time for film photography when digital cameras took off in the 1990s, and seemed set to take over entirely. But with some help from Vladimir Putin - then deputy mayor of St Petersburg - the little Lomo camera became a retro cult classic, and showed film had a bright future.


    I don't agree Lomography 'saved film photography', but it did make a contribution by introducing many younger people to film, and the article borrows heavily from the Lomographic Society International's gospel, but an interesting read all the same.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20434270


    -----------My Flickr-----------
    Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.

  2. #2
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,341
    We must not forget that Lomography and Impossible employ a very active media approach.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    We must not forget that Lomography and Impossible employ a very active media approach.
    Exactly.
    Unfortunately both are currently the only companies who have a real and effective marketing strategy for film.
    And because they do marketing, they have increasing sales for years.

    Well, Kodak don't have money for marketing in their current situation. Ilford and Fujifilm are doing very little marketing. They could and should do more.

    And very very unfortunately profitable film distribution companies like Freestyle don't do marketing for film. That is one of the big problems of the market.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Film-Niko View Post
    Exactly.
    Unfortunately both are currently the only companies who have a real and effective marketing strategy for film.
    And because they do marketing, they have increasing sales for years.

    Well, Kodak don't have money for marketing in their current situation. Ilford and Fujifilm are doing very little marketing. They could and should do more.

    And very very unfortunately profitable film distribution companies like Freestyle don't do marketing for film. That is one of the big problems of the market.
    Well, I think its quite fortunate that they are having this effective marketing strategy for film because without them, film could be less popular and some types harder to find. Doesnt mean film will vanish without it though.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    280
    Lomography is very good at branding itself as a single entity. They offer the cameras, the film, and any accessories under the same name. Much like Apple. It makes life easy for the consumer as they know that everything will work together with no need to do much research beyond matching the numbers up. It's much the same marketing trick Kodak used with the original Brownie - you buy a package and just have to hand over the cash to have it processed and returned to you with a fresh film loaded.

    Ilford on the other hand make film, papers and chemicals, but no 35mm or 120 cameras. You have to seek out the camera yourself, do the research, find a dealer or reputable internet seller, and buy it before you get started. There is no simple starter kit where you just click "buy now" and have everything you need delivered a few days later. It's up to you to either learn how to process your own or find a lab able to do it for you.

    The frankly outrageous prices of Lomo stuff make me weep. £289 for a Lubitel 166+? I paid £30 for a 166U brand new in the mid 1990s and thought that a reasonable price for the fun it gave me. The money they want now is serious MF territory - you can find a working Bronica ETRSi for that much which is light years ahead in image quality and handling. I also worry how many will think that the "Lomo" look is all film is capable of and give up on the whole idea if they don't like the very peculiar results.
    Matt

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,911
    the prices are right out of the kodak play book too ...
    the original KODAK cost $45 which was 3months pay back in the 1880s when
    the camera was introduced ...

    its always hard to be hip when you're broke ...

  7. #7
    bsdunek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,100
    Images
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by PentaxBronica View Post

    The frankly outrageous prices of Lomo stuff make me weep. £289 for a Lubitel 166+? I paid £30 for a 166U brand new in the mid 1990s and thought that a reasonable price for the fun it gave me. The money they want now is serious MF territory - you can find a working Bronica ETRSi for that much which is light years ahead in image quality and handling. I also worry how many will think that the "Lomo" look is all film is capable of and give up on the whole idea if they don't like the very peculiar results.
    There's something I hadn't thought of. I do like the fact that Lomography promotes film use, but yes, if people think those generally crappy pictures are what film does, they may be as harmful as they are helpful. Certainly food for thought.
    Bruce

    Moma don't take my Kodachrome away!
    Oops, Kodak just did!


    BruceCSdunekPhotography.zenfolio.com

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,321
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    We must not forget that Lomography and Impossible employ a very active media approach.
    Yes, and we must not forget that they both sell garbage.

  9. #9
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,341
    I can't say that in that general way. There is quite a lot I like.

    But as said above the former offers a whole package. For what you pay.

  10. #10
    Andy K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny Southend, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Images
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Yes, and we must not forget that they both sell garbage.

    I have to disagree with such a generalisation. The Lomo LC-A is actually a very capable little camera with outstanding low-light abilities.


    -----------My Flickr-----------
    Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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