Ok, now before you all start calling me names, or responding to this post with nasty comments, I know that there is going to be people out there who are going to disagree with me on this, and that is ok.
All I ask is that you just hear me out for a sec!
I was just wondering if I am the only one out there who thinks this whole Lomography thing is over-rated and/or over-hyped?
I have been an avid photographer and camera collector for many years; I've used all sorts of different makes and models of cameras, film sizes, etc. You name it; I've probably used it or played around with it at some point.
However, I fail so see what is so great about taking fuzzy, blurry, and out of focus, pictures. And, why does a poorly made camera made with no more than a dollar or two worth of plastic, costs about $60-$70? (Am I the only on that thinks there is something wrong with that?) For $60-$70, you can by a fairly decent used 35mm film SLR!
Cameras such as the Holga and Dania for example, are not even built that well, considering their price. I think it is rather funny how vendors try to put a positive twist on the cameras design flaws. Such cute fraises as, "Soft Focus", this means that the pictures are blurry due to the poorly made plastic lens. "Intense Vignetting", basically it looks like you are taking pictures through an empty tissue paper roll, again, because of the poor lens. And lets not forget, "Unpredictable Light Leaks", in other words, the camera is so poorly built that light gets in and ruins the film (Rather counterintuitive don't you think?)
If you think about it shooting in 120 can be kind of expensive, after you buy a roll, take pictures, and get it developed, it can work out to over $2 per picture. Even with 35mm film, both the cost of the film and developing can easily be over $10 to $12 per roll.
With film, obviously you are paying for each picture you take (whether the picture comes out or not) with that said, shouldn't the pictures look half decent?
Ok, I get it the whole "artsy" prospective, with taking pictures with a low-tech camera, and "going back to basics". This seems to be the big thing with the hip and artsy crowd. I have played around with my share of old box cameras (Some of which are probably about as low-tech as you can get) and take amazingly sharp pictures. But in the case of Lomography, honestly, do the pictures really have to look bad?
Sadly, I think in our society we have gotten to the point where anyone can take a blurry picture, and say "look at me I'm an artist!" or "Look at me I'm a photographer!"
Just to clear things up a little, I am not bashing Lomography; I just do not understand what all the hype is about. I am just presenting my point-of-view on the matter, and can someone please explain it to me what the big deal is? And/or does anyone out there share my thoughts on the subject?
Recent discussions in the Photography forum
|Best camera for concert video?||761||2 days ago|
|is ebay better than amazon?||17||13 days ago|
|who is dbroth?||41||14 days ago|
|How can i sell my FAA photos on Amazon.com?||0||14 days ago|
|Best Canonn Lens for School portraits with backdrops||2||19 days ago|
|Is there a Point & Shoot that I can thether to a computer?||16||Oct 21, 2015|
|Quality camcorder for indoor youth hockey games||3||Sep 29, 2015|
|How do I remove "Samsung" from my photos?||3||Sep 20, 2015|
|Charging Issues with Nikon CoolPix S4000??||6||Aug 31, 2015|
|Concert Photography||2||Aug 26, 2015|
|Eqipment needed for photography of images for selling on the web||2||Aug 19, 2015|
|Mirrorless vs superzoom||2||Aug 9, 2015|