Their cameras are way overpriced for what they are, their quality is really bad. I had the Diana and the Fisheye 1 and they are really cheaply made. The plastic lenses are really bad. In my opinion 120 format film in a Diana is really wasted because of the bad quality lens. The Fisheye had its colour pealing and the Diana Instant back would get stuck every now and then. Speaking about overpricing, the lomography shop sells film at extreme prices as well. Finally Lomography branded film which is cheaper than their prices for Kodak and Fuji is really inferior quality.
Last edited by stavrosk; 06-21-2011 at 01:58 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Mine too. In fact, maybe I can solicite to get some government agency to pay me to stop taking pictures.
Originally Posted by pbromaghin
Like it or not but the fact is that Lomography is the one and only film photography user genre which sees a steadily growing number of users. Lomography.org sells a staggering number of new film cameras each year and they expect 100% growth this year (read it from some British newspaper). They also sell a HUGE number of film rolls each year and if there's ever an upward tick in film consumption it must be those darn hipsters we should thank for. Every di**tal camera can take a sharp and nicely exposed photo automatically but if you want to get unsharp photos with a lot of flare, blocked highlights and shadows and weird colors you simply need to use film.
They won't show up here on APUG for sure. They are too busy exchanging opinions of their new Abercrombie & Fitch wear and trying to find out ways to send even more money to this lanky Steve character in Cupertino, US.
If you ask do they help us keeping the film alive the answer is a strong yes.
They won't show up on APUG because I'd guess that 99% of them are using a hybrid workflow and scanning the negatives (or having them scanned for them). But this discussion has been had before.. ..
Originally Posted by mablo
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
There are some very disappointing comments on this thread.
I use a Holga sometimes. Bought it used for $25. I had an LC-A+ that my mother bought me a few years ago and hated it. I got a Diana for Christmas one year that my wife paid over $100 for. I liked it. It was white and cute and had a panda on it. I wear $300 Diesel and 7 Brand jeans to play paintball and fly remote control planes in. I'm a graphic designer and use Apple products 100% of the time and absolutely DESPISE anything made by Microsoft. I guess I'm a fool, huh?
Lomo isn't a scam as much as it's an exploitation of people ignorant to the alternatives. No, not ignorant in a bad way. Maybe they just don't know and haven't learned. When I started with photography I knew nothing and I went to the pawn shop and paid $200 for a used, black AE1 Program and 50 f/1.4 lens. I made some great images with it and last April when my house burned down, I salvaged it and my wife used it today. Did I pay too much because I didn't know any better? Yes, but it got me started. It doesn't make them or me, fools or stupid. As long as Holgas and Dianas and Lubis make the shooter happy and keep people in the spirit of photography, who cares what they cost?
Live and let live.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Ultimately, Photography is subversive, not when it frightens, repels, or even stigmatizes, but when it is pensive, when it thinks. --from Camera Lucida, Roland Barthes
Cameras: Canon 5D2 | Ricoh GRD III | Fuji Klasse
True, it isn't a scam, at least not in the traditional sense. Nobody is in physical danger, and only a fool would spend the rent money on a camera. Even if it is a Rolleiflex WA for dirt cheap you don't spend the rent money.
Originally Posted by matthewm
But I have to admit I was sorely disappointed the day my Holga arrived. I felt ripped off, and I bought it while they were still only $35.
Sure you can make some unpredictable images with a Holga. But luck isn't photographic vision.
I have said for years that the reason I could get good results with a Brownie Hawkeye is because the photographer is not in the camera. Among the Lomo adherents the thinking is that the photographer IS in the camera. That relegates me to being no more than a monkey that trips the shutter.
Or maybe no more than the cat Blansky posted about a few days ago.
Sorry. I have to reject that notion.
Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk
I'm glad to see the world is divided on this topic. And very happy to read that Lomo is helping the film sales keep up just a little bit with d*g*t*l device sales numbers. We know film for the cinéma keeps our products alive but all extra small amounts can help the producents keep there business sound and safe. When I ordered from M in Germany last week they announced on their site the processing will take extra 5 days due to huge success of film sales. That's the news I want to read instead of "we go down,down,down.... Let the Lomo guy's and galls live their life, don't expect them to addapt semi-pro habits as most of apuggers maybe do. Life is full of color, don't wipe or bleach it away.
Originally Posted by matthewm
lomo was a factory of some nice instruments, not particulary good, but nice. lomo lca was a cosina cx2 copy with inferior quality, but it was usable. lubitel tlr was a cheap camera intended for amateurs, usable.
LOMO factory is gone, everything is made in china, quality is not good, prices are hiiiiiigghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
special effects will always be just that...
It's still there, making scientific instruments, optics, cameras and so on. They've moved on from making low quality 1950s cameras, perhaps.
Originally Posted by ruilourosa
The best camera they made was the Sputnik; I rarely go on holiday without mine.