does anyone know anything about lomograph cameras?

Lomo Photography

We decided they weren't much cop.

If you want a reasonably priced toy cam with unique image qualities, the Holga is a good option. Check out http://www.toycamera.com/ - many of the user galleries were made with Holgas (or Dianas, older and expensive but similar).

In the US the new model w/ tripod support and minor improvements runs $29 from a few online places. The good (or bad) thing about Holgas is that they use medium-format film (120) so you get a larger negative (6cm x 6cm) but you can't just get the negs processed on the corner.

i thought the auto lightmeter (it keeps the shutter open until it feels it has enought light) was the only cool thing about it. but then again, you can do that with other cameras by turning off the flash. i dunno.

There's also the Cosina CX-2 and I think Kiev makes a faulty little 35A as well. The size makes you want to carry them around. I have both the Cosina and the XA-2 and the shutters will stay open A LONG time to get those trippy late night shots. The Lomo is overpriced and will probably break.

The Holgas w/ flash are great with color film if you get a good model (you never know what the plastic lens will do until you've used an individual camera), it already vignettes and the camera is directly above the lens, so you can get super-saturated colors and a spotlight effect, like a surreal episode of Cops. (had a friend do a series of arty 'naughty Catholic schoolgirl' glamour shots with one, it was embarassingly hawt)

I also use Holgas for projects I wouldn't risk a real camera on, photographing the inside of mosh pits, etc.. If I were going to an anti-war/anti-Bush protest now, I'd carry a Holga. If someone breaks it or the polizei grab it, I'm out $15 buying in bulk plus some spraypaint. (Obviously I'm not a professional and if I miss a shot I miss a shot.)

Of course, the artistic elements comes back in to play when you can select the accidents or "flaws" that work successfully with the image/subject, and discard the ones that don't. I have no qualms with accidental art; my biggest disgust comes with art that is completely contrived before the camera/paintbrush/etc. is even picked up. You fail to be an artist when you think you have all of the formulas down & can't be accepting to chaos and error, IMO.

That said, I think you can do what a Lomo does with nearly any old manual 35 or a new manual digital with a few gels & filters. I'd be more interested in the Lomo if it had a few more features, like maybe a manual anamorphic adapter that could be rotated by hand. Or maybe a selector that just randomly chose a filter color & lens effects so that you can experiment with chance operations.

I realize that I'm more serious about the process than most of the people putting up photos online (I'm also insanely self-critical, maybe too much.), but I get frustrated by people who excercise little or no judgement about their work. (Lest I be thought too much of an asshole, I keep my thoughts to myself when I can't offer anything constructive.)

800 should be good at dusk/dark overcast days/inside, I would think. 100 ISO is just about right when you use the flash.

(/rockism)

"Question - is deliberate/accidental distortion/lack of composition etc. become the default mode in which to take interesting photographs? Who is bold enough to just take a good photograph these days?"

Check out photo.net to see people obsessed with "proper" exposure and limited distortion (ie. people who take photographs for a living).

i've only done it once and had pretty blah results. it really depends on what film you use, what kind of lighting you're using and what lab develops it. almost all of my photos turned out green.

does anyone have any good results from it and know what combination of the above they used?

!!!

I don't know that this is correct (though I'd thank you to give me documentation on this). It did, however, have a DI, which led to many of the looks you see in the final product.

i guess i don't understand the technophobia here--it's just another tool used in image creation. I understand the desire to be a master of one's craft & such, but the virtuoso thing has long been done in photography. I don't see using Photoshop or other digital/software tools as being "cheating" in any way--it's just a method of artistic creation.

I belong the Frameworks (experimental/AG film) listserv, and I have the same issues over there--unless you're shooting and editing16mm or Super8 film, you're not a filmmaker. And as a filmmaker who shoots mainly video (with the majority of my final image created mainly in post via complex compositing), I have some major issues with this. It just seems plain curmudgeonly and conservative, qualities which have no place in the arts IMO.

I do sometimes, but I'm beginning to forget why. For example, this is a photo of a place that does not exist.

http://giganticmag.com/photos/P1010798.jpg

The whole right third of the photo should be taken up by a gargantuan fucking ugly-ass condo building. I didn't like that building, so I removed it. I'm not exactly proud of that, but neither am I going to lose any sleep over it.

as to what i said about photoshop up there... i do genuinely love photoshop. i do design work and have to use it all of the time. my digital camera, for whatever reason, usually looks like shit when you fuck with the levels in photoshop, unless you completely abstract the photo, which is not really what i was getting at wanting to do with a camera when i asked my initial questions.

Basically it takes lots of experimentation. You have to get your exposure and everything spot on or yeah they'll either be green or blah.

i've been trying to find comments on the lomography movement from critics or pro photographers... there is an aspect to them that does certainly seem "too easy", but i don't know if that's just the sort of conservatism that jay was referring to upthread. most of the pictures on the lomo site are of fairly mundane things that wouldn't warrant uploading if they were shot on a more "standard" camera. but then, dub reggae wouldn't be as interesting without a reverb pedal.

Holgas are a cheap plastic camera made in China, but the commoditization of them fits into the Austrian-Lomo model, so they market them. The "Lomo-style Holga" is basically just to make sure everyone pulled in by the Lomo hype sees the listing.

That said, for $25 -- I just bought a new Holga a couple of weeks ago -- it's fun to play with. Feels about as sturdy and technologically advanced as your standard Kodak disposable. And, at least where I live, medium format film sometimes requires some looking to find.

I've been using the fisheye Lomo camera lately, which was a present, and is pretty good, though the images aren't as distorted as I'd hoped despite the 170 degree lens.

Obviously there are more "normal" medium-format cameras out there as well - Lomo has sold Russian and Japanese ones at various times - and in that context, the Holga's gimmick is that it's cheap plastic (e.g., sometimes light leaks through cracks in the body and you get the weird light streak here and there). That's the angle I came at it from.