Quote Originally Posted by steven_e007 View Post
a Lomo fan could easily get the impression that digital is for serious, well exposed, properly focused photography - whereas film is fun because it is so unpredictably bizarre...
I really think it's wrong-headed to assume that "Lomo fans" are all somehow learning-disabled and unable to look further than what lomography.com tells them. If they have any curiosity at all, they'll be googling film-related terms and subjects and APUG or RFF or photo.net results will be at or near the top. So they can find out what other kinds of photography is being done (and of course they'll also find they are derided as "hipsters" and dupes of lomography.com)

I have no interest in doing "lomography", by the way, nor do I own any "lomo" cameras.

But this is taking the thread way off topic so I'll clamber off my current hobby-horse and shut up

Quote Originally Posted by prof pixel
It certainly DIDN'T ""misrepresented" film photography".
And I didn't say it did. I suggested that was a possible corollary of suggesting "Lomo misrepresents film photography".
I used a lot of 126 cassettes in my teens in the 1970s. I've recently scanned about 200 of them in fact