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.