Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,972   Posts: 1,558,699   Online: 834
      
Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 121
  1. #51
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,472
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy K View Post
    It was indeed a '72...
    I KNEW it! I had a '72 powder blue bug. Also the best car I ever had. Until it was rear-ended by a 3/4-ton pickup driven by a 16-year-old. Tore the engine loose and pushed it into the back seat. A total loss. I still have my keys.



    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  2. #52
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,475
    Images
    225

    What Does "Lomo" Mean?

    I read the first page but haven't read the other 2, question, where does the lomo 120 come from? They sell some B&W and some color but no details about where it comes from.

    Anyone know what company? If you put B&W lomo film in a Hassleblad would you get fine grain crisp images?

    Thanks for anyone who knows. They sell it at hipster stores like urban outfitters but often that store is easier to find than a photo store that sells 120 so in a pinch, could you use it?


    ~Stone

    The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  3. #53
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,475
    Images
    225

    What Does "Lomo" Mean?

    On. Side note, A very popular camera company used to make a camera that only had one shutter speed and a fixed crappy single lens camera that cost the equivalent of more than $200 that sometimes had light leaks and limited in the hands of hip amateurs... They called them "Kodak's" :whistles:


    ~Stone

    The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy K View Post
    Yeah, those little Lomo LC-A cameras are terrible...


    LCABug by Takumar, on Flickr

    The Minitar-1 1:2.8 32mm lens is superb.

    We are all familiar with the scan in the image then shrink it down to 380x256 and apply sharpening trick. Not sure what that has to do with legitimate lens evaluation though. And as was pointed out you can get Canon's most advanced "prosumer" 35mm SLR and a nifty fifty for less than Lomography is selling a Lomo LC-A. The question is why not have a more versatile, more reliable, easier to use camera that costs less? Only in the realm of "art" would someone argue against that.

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    On. Side note, A very popular camera company used to make a camera that only had one shutter speed and a fixed crappy single lens camera that cost the equivalent of more than $200 that sometimes had light leaks and limited in the hands of hip amateurs... They called them "Kodak's" :whistles:
    What century was that? We were discussing 2012. With that logic Kodak should have shut down R&D in the 40's.

    Quote Originally Posted by pdeeh View Post
    The idea that those who use "lomo" cameras are so ignorant and ill-informed that they are incapable of looking further than wacky colours and light leaks ... well, I think it's a false assumption based on limited evidence, shall we say ...
    Yeah that's why Lomo shooters appear on the internet wondering what high resolution scanner they should use to scan in the cross processed transparencies taken with their plastic lenses. I wasn't born knowing everything about photography. After years of interest in the hobby I feel like I still only know a tiny fraction of what there is to know. This is in spite of taking formal photography courses in high school and college. A lot of things in photography are not intuitive. And if you are living in a digital world and are introduced to film photography by an organization who has a vested interest in selling plastic cameras then I rather doubt you are going to figure out the true FACTS about film photography. When people see images I produce they are often surprised to find out I used a film camera. They just assume film cameras are cumbersome, low fidelity, unpredictable, relics. Lomography reinforces that misconception. Some people will eventually get a clue. I'm worried about the others that don't and leave they Lomography experience with a skewed view of what film photography is all about. And worse yet spread the misinformation to others.

    Photography is like any discipline. All participants benefit from a structured start learning the basics. Now it doesn't have to be some protracted long drawn out course at a four year university. But the basics of light, aperture, shutter speed, and ISO should be taught to a hobbyist. I find it saves people from having to rack their brains trying to figure out how did someone get that shot. There is plenty of time for that on more advanced topics. Every single person I have steered away from Lomography and explained the basics of photography has thanked me. For a very modest sum they have picked up used cameras that are quite versatile. They are thrilled that for less money they have a tool that they will not outgrow. I love showing my DSLR shooting friends how they can get into film photography for as little at $10. Lomography.com isn't going to tell them they can pick up a $10 Nikon or Canon at goodwill and use all their DSLR lens. No. Lomography.com is going to tell them they need to drop $200-$300+ on some plastic light leak box to shoot film.

    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    it's kind of sucks that photographers ( digital or chemical ) are so insecure
    they have to cut down people who don't practice the same sort of photography as them.
    I love how making an objective statement about a capitalistic marketing campaign means you are "insecure." Do you think when the Lomo shooting hipsters get on the human mic at Zuccotti Park and rant about Goldman Sachs' mortgage backed securities they are being "insecure" or do you think they have a legitimate gripe against a deceptive business practice?

    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    i'd rather look at a stack of "flawed" images than a handful of clinical ones
    So the advice everyone gives to edit your collection is wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Lange View Post
    What's funny, is that you can practice "lomography" with any camera.

    Sometimes I do it with my Rolleiflex, sometimes I do it with my Hasselblad.

    I even do it with my Leica, Nikons, and Pentax 6x7 occasionally. Lomography is simply the overcoming of obsession with technical limitations and theory, and just giving plain old serendipity a chance.

    Sometimes I shoot my 6x7 without the lens mounted, just held in front of the mount, so that I can tilt and shift as I please. A shroud of black duct tape is a serviceable enough bellows. That's pretty f*cking lomo, if you ask me.
    True. But Lomography doesn't want you to spend $20 on ebay and buy a Canon you can use with all your great digital lenses. Noooo.... They want you to spend $300+ and buy their stupid plastic light leak box. That's what I have a problem with. And frankly with the advent of digital my spontaneous shooting went way up. It's counter intuitive to go practice lomography with medium format film and a plastic lens. You can do far more experiments with a DSLR. Actually I use my DSLR as a test bed for a lot of things and then transfer what I have learned over to film for the final shot. Obviously the cross processing can't be prototyped on digital. And a lot of my B&W filter experimentation can't be done on digital.

    I understand that a plastic lens imparts certain characteristics but I don't' understand why you need medium format film to record it. I also understand light leaks can be cool but I don't understand paying MORE for them.

    Quote Originally Posted by ozphoto View Post
    Who cares if they're overpriced, dark-boxes with coke-bottle lenses?
    I don't. What I have a problem with is marketing them to amateurs that don't know any better and perpetuating certain myths about film photography. Why do people scream whenever an exec at a digital company makes a false statement about film photography but defenders come out of the wood work when it is lomography.com?

    There is simply no need for the majority of what lomography.com sells. Frankly I am shocked SHOCKED that we have a situation where numerous excellent film cameras are simply being tossed out and people are praising, PRAISING a company that against this backdrop is manufacturing thousands of PLASTIC cameras and marketing them through Urban Outfitters. Am I to understand no one gives a damn about the environment? Examine this bizarre situation objectively and tell me this is a responsible way to behave. I understand it is a free country and they are free to conduct their business within the bounds of the law but I am astonished that "artists" so comfortably turn a blind eye to this disease that capitalism produced.

  5. #55
    Stephanie Brim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,607
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Noble View Post
    We are all familiar with the scan in the image then shrink it down to 380x256 and apply sharpening trick. Not sure what that has to do with legitimate lens evaluation though. And as was pointed out you can get Canon's most advanced "prosumer" 35mm SLR and a nifty fifty for less than Lomography is selling a Lomo LC-A. The question is why not have a more versatile, more reliable, easier to use camera that costs less? Only in the realm of "art" would someone argue against that.



    What century was that? We were discussing 2012. With that logic Kodak should have shut down R&D in the 40's.



    Yeah that's why Lomo shooters appear on the internet wondering what high resolution scanner they should use to scan in the cross processed transparencies taken with their plastic lenses. I wasn't born knowing everything about photography. After years of interest in the hobby I feel like I still only know a tiny fraction of what there is to know. This is in spite of taking formal photography courses in high school and college. A lot of things in photography are not intuitive. And if you are living in a digital world and are introduced to film photography by an organization who has a vested interest in selling plastic cameras then I rather doubt you are going to figure out the true FACTS about film photography. When people see images I produce they are often surprised to find out I used a film camera. They just assume film cameras are cumbersome, low fidelity, unpredictable, relics. Lomography reinforces that misconception. Some people will eventually get a clue. I'm worried about the others that don't and leave they Lomography experience with a skewed view of what film photography is all about. And worse yet spread the misinformation to others.

    Photography is like any discipline. All participants benefit from a structured start learning the basics. Now it doesn't have to be some protracted long drawn out course at a four year university. But the basics of light, aperture, shutter speed, and ISO should be taught to a hobbyist. I find it saves people from having to rack their brains trying to figure out how did someone get that shot. There is plenty of time for that on more advanced topics. Every single person I have steered away from Lomography and explained the basics of photography has thanked me. For a very modest sum they have picked up used cameras that are quite versatile. They are thrilled that for less money they have a tool that they will not outgrow. I love showing my DSLR shooting friends how they can get into film photography for as little at $10. Lomography.com isn't going to tell them they can pick up a $10 Nikon or Canon at goodwill and use all their DSLR lens. No. Lomography.com is going to tell them they need to drop $200-$300+ on some plastic light leak box to shoot film.



    I love how making an objective statement about a capitalistic marketing campaign means you are "insecure." Do you think when the Lomo shooting hipsters get on the human mic at Zuccotti Park and rant about Goldman Sachs' mortgage backed securities they are being "insecure" or do you think they have a legitimate gripe against a deceptive business practice?



    So the advice everyone gives to edit your collection is wrong?



    True. But Lomography doesn't want you to spend $20 on ebay and buy a Canon you can use with all your great digital lenses. Noooo.... They want you to spend $300+ and buy their stupid plastic light leak box. That's what I have a problem with. And frankly with the advent of digital my spontaneous shooting went way up. It's counter intuitive to go practice lomography with medium format film and a plastic lens. You can do far more experiments with a DSLR. Actually I use my DSLR as a test bed for a lot of things and then transfer what I have learned over to film for the final shot. Obviously the cross processing can't be prototyped on digital. And a lot of my B&W filter experimentation can't be done on digital.

    I understand that a plastic lens imparts certain characteristics but I don't' understand why you need medium format film to record it. I also understand light leaks can be cool but I don't understand paying MORE for them.



    I don't. What I have a problem with is marketing them to amateurs that don't know any better and perpetuating certain myths about film photography. Why do people scream whenever an exec at a digital company makes a false statement about film photography but defenders come out of the wood work when it is lomography.com?

    There is simply no need for the majority of what lomography.com sells. Frankly I am shocked SHOCKED that we have a situation where numerous excellent film cameras are simply being tossed out and people are praising, PRAISING a company that against this backdrop is manufacturing thousands of PLASTIC cameras and marketing them through Urban Outfitters. Am I to understand no one gives a damn about the environment? Examine this bizarre situation objectively and tell me this is a responsible way to behave. I understand it is a free country and they are free to conduct their business within the bounds of the law but I am astonished that "artists" so comfortably turn a blind eye to this disease that capitalism produced.
    They have fun. They have the money to spend. Who the hell cares what other people spend money on? I'm not going sit around pissed off because someone spent $100 on a camera I could have gotten for $20. I don't care.

    Also, for the record. Lomography didn't start out being a company. It was just an idea, and a way of seeing things. In fact, most of the original cameras come up on Ebay still, so it isn't like people can't get them cheaper if they wanted to.
    No idea what's going to happen next, but I'm hoping it involves being wrist deep in chemicals come the weekend.

  6. #56
    Chris Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    764
    Images
    33
    I suppose when I wrote my post I should have stated I was referring to lomography (little L) versus Lomography (big L).
    See my work at my website CHRISTOPHER LANGE PHOTOGRAPHY

    or my snaps at my blog MINIMUM DENSITY
    --
    If you don't have it, then you don't have it.

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephanie Brim View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Noble View Post
    There is simply no need for the majority of what lomography.com sells. Frankly I am shocked SHOCKED that we have a situation where numerous excellent film cameras are simply being tossed out and people are praising, PRAISING a company that against this backdrop is manufacturing thousands of PLASTIC cameras and marketing them through Urban Outfitters. Am I to understand no one gives a damn about the environment? Examine this bizarre situation objectively and tell me this is a responsible way to behave. I understand it is a free country and they are free to conduct their business within the bounds of the law but I am astonished that "artists" so comfortably turn a blind eye to this disease that capitalism produced.
    They have fun. They have the money to spend. Who the hell cares what other people spend money on?
    Okay that's one vote for not caring about the environment. Anyone else?


    Quote Originally Posted by Stephanie Brim View Post
    Also, for the record. Lomography didn't start out being a company. It was just an idea, and a way of seeing things.
    For the record most great capitalists aren't innovative inventors. They just know how to take the work of the true innovators and inventors and manipulate the patent, copyright, and legal system to their advantage. Never make the mistake of thinking just because someone has seven+ figures in their bank account they have provided mankind with some astonishing useful innovative idea/product. Please understand I was by no means saying the people flogging $200 plastic cameras invented spontaneous creative film photography. No, what they invented was the idea you needed to spend $300+ to do what $20, a DSLR lens you already own, and a little imagination could accomplish with a used Canon/Nikon body off of ebay. And when you point this fact out to people you get called a "snob." Figure that one out.
    Last edited by Noble; 11-26-2012 at 07:33 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephanie Brim View Post
    Considering that all they have to do is search 'film photography' on Google to see that this is not the case, why be worried about that?
    Because public perception drives the market.
    testing...

  9. #59
    cmacd123's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stittsville, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,086
    It is too bad that the "lomography" folks have kinda besmirched the name of the LOMO factory in St Petersburg. The Original factory made a wide range of cameras in the former Soviet union, many of them in what we would call the "popular price" range. A SMELMA used to be available for 20 bucks and it is a great little manual plastic 35mm Point and shoot. http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Smena_8M_%282%29 .

    Camera Pedia also have the history of the factory, and it makes clear that Cameras were only a sideline... http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/LOMO

    Do it yourself Movie makers will also be familar with the LOMO developing tanks that can take up to 50 feet of 16 or 35mm Film. https://sites.google.com/site/olexse...ocessing-tanks

    The Lomography folks did start our with the LOMO copy of the MINOX 35, which does scope high on the cuteness scale but they now build their versions in China or elesewhere.

    NOW for the LOMOGRAPHY FILM.

    My sense of adventure has resulted in buying a few rolls and attempting to figure out the source. Some is of Chinese manuafcture, some from Foma, and at least the 35mm Lady Grey I bought was definatly a Kodak Product. (although with edge printing that just says B&W 400 ) Yes they do sell their film as a much higher price than the main stream suppliers. and yes they do emphasise the sort of defects that make many or us Cringe. BUT they do raise awareness in the mind of the public that film is alive and well, and is perhaps more interesting than a quick grap from a cell Phone camera.
    Charles MacDonald
    aa508@ncf.ca
    I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville

  10. #60
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,472
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    i'd rather look at a stack of "flawed" images than a handful of clinical ones
    Quote Originally Posted by Noble View Post
    So the advice everyone gives to edit your collection is wrong?
    Uncalled for and does not advance your argument...

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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