I agree with Stephanie. I think a lot of people who shoot with these cheap cameras/lenses (including myself) are not 'lomographers' in the sense of the big "L" lomography movement, they are just people who like to have fun or explore what can be done with cameras outside the norm. I like my Holgas but I can guarantee that I would never pay the prices that places like Lomography and other retailers demand.

That being said...I think the appeal of Lomography is that is provides people, who may not know a lot about film, or be intimidated by film cameras that are outside of their realm of familiarity (I certainly was before I got my first medium format camera). Sure, the cameras and the films are expensive (we know that), but they provide an easy, friendly access to those who are looking for something different but are not sure where to start. I'm certain that if those people keep up with it and do their research, they'll learn quickly enough that they can use cheaper, non-Lomo films to do what they want, and that there are other cameras and processes that they might try.

The thing that bothers me about lomography (big or small L) is that it promotes the idea that film is unpredictable, goofy, out-of-focus, that cameras leak light, etc... and that that's all film can be about. Most recent articles about film always seem to have a tie to the lomography movement, which I find unfortunate. There's so much more to film than cheap cameras (not that there's anything wrong with them, I like them), film can (and does) produce stunning work, it can be very reliable and predictable and beautiful, but no one is promoting that fact. We at APUG of course know that, but we are insiders to this little club, and getting that message out there without being critical or condescending is important.