What does /p/ think of lomography?
>>2728054
It's for talentless hipster cunts that are too useless to take up real photography.
>>2728054
>what does an elitist community think of a niche subculture?
This question has been asked many times and can only be answered one way by its audience.
Personally I love their 400 ISO film for its colors but I don't use much else of their stuff.
My girlfriend bought me a konstruktor camera as she knows I love making model kits and taking pictures and it takes some pretty fun photos
>>2728060
>real photography
loving every laugh. there is no "real' photography you bafoon.
"Don't think, just shoot"? Rules like the following?
1. Take your camera everywhere you go.
2. Use it any time – day and night.
3. Lomography is not an interference in your life, but part of it.
4. Try the shot from the hip.
5. Approach the objects of your Lomographic desire as close as possible.
6. Don't think.
7. Be fast.
8. You don't have to know beforehand what you captured on film.
9. Afterwards either.
10. Don't worry about any rules.
I think this is just a fancy word for what today's generation Y teens intuitively do as soon as they get a smartphone or other mobile device with a camera. I think it is also a public nuisance and a damn waste of film and electricity that has no aesthetic merits.
>>2728364
>I think it is also a public nuisance and a damn waste of film and electricity that has no aesthetic merits
Even if you can't accept that your own views are flawed on principle, at least see that there's work that follows these guidelines that are seen as masterpiece-level and are regarded as pivotal pieces .
ex./ Robert Frank, The Americans
>>2728364
>I think this is just a fancy word for what today's generation Y teens intuitively do as soon as they get a smartphone or other mobile device with a camera.
Isn't it only because most teenagers live boring lives that aren't worth documenting?
>>2728382
Robert Frank is not a lomographer and does not work like one. He was born in 1924, 78 years before the lomography art movement was founded by Viennese students in 1992. Despite a bit of overlap the two are NOT at all the same. For one, Robert Frank does street and documentary photography while lomography is experimental art ("alternative photography", if you will). Learn your history in stead of using terms incorrectly on the net because "lomography = hipster, I learned it on 4chan". Robert Frank's nice street photography != this hyper-vignetted, cross-processed snapshit style.
>>2728387
Maybe. I think it's also because, in "shaking up" their boring lives, they like experimenting and playing around without any real knowledge of any aesthetic or technical frameworks... and lomography basically encourages that, being an experimental art movement.
>>2728404
>Robert Frank is not a lomographer
Never said he was bruh. Read my post again. I'm referring specifically to his set "The Americans" for which he followed similar guidelines to that which you posted. I could've just as easily said Subway Portraits by Walker Evans and that would also adhere to most of those guidelines while not making Evans a lomographer. I'm just saying your opinion is trash because those guidelines/that method is perfectly valid and not, "a damn waste of film and electricity that has no aesthetic merits".
Also I find irony in you telling me to learn my history when you claim that Frank wasn't experimental. ESPECIALLY the work I posted about, The Americans, which was arguably a direct followup to Evans' American Photographs which most DEFINITELY built up new experimental elements and method. It sounds like you've only glossed the surface of the 'tradition' that Frank belonged to before making that post.
>Robert Frank's nice street photography != this hyper-vignetted, cross-processed snapshit style.
Sounds like you're conflating lomography with a select output of lomographic practice.
>>2728413
OP here, no fucking clue whats happening but I appreciate you because you seem to know what you're talking about.
>>2728416
OP, if you want to follow those 10 points for lomography and "don't think just shoot" then do it. It's 1 in a million other possible methods people follow when taking photographs. Don't let some philistine tell you not to do it because some of its other followers have produced some kitsch, shitty work. If you follow it, the only work that matters is your own.
>>2728413
The Americans is still not lomography. Overlap but not equal. This is also why yes, the lomography method is indeed TRASH. Just because some random photographer has a few points of similar method does not make it the same thing, so stop merging the two. Also, there is still a difference between the experimental art movement and experimenting in general. This is obvious and not even worth pointing out.
I'm conflating lomography with lomography. Lomography is lomography, not your Internet-slang lomography.
>>2728420
>the only work that matters is your own
Also, this is good advice no matter what direction or style we're talking. Of course that has nothing to do with the opening question, which asks for opinions about a specific thing, a specific style.
>>2728110
I love their 400 and 800 films as well. Very vibrant colors.
Their cameras are extremely overpriced, except the Konstruktor which is nice considering it's a model kit and working camera.
The hipsters are kinda ghey too but they ahve decent shit
>>2728426
>I'm conflating lomography with lomography. Lomography is lomography, not your Internet-slang lomography.
You're literally conflating
>hyper-vignetted, cross-processed snapshit style
(AKA the work of some people who adhere to lomography)
Which is not an inherent product of lomography's methods (which you posted yourself)
http://www.lomography.com/about/the-ten-golden-rules
>Overlap but not equal
You clearly don't know what Frank's method was. Your understanding of photo-history must just be looking at the photographs produced and saying, "Yep this is X tradition" without understanding the buildup and background. Which brings me to
>there is still a difference between the experimental art movement and experimenting in general. This is obvious and not even worth pointing out
It's a false statement which you just went through and pointed out after you said it wasn't worth pointing out. If you're really trying to claim that The Americans wasn't part of experimental art or that it somehow invalidates a step on lomography's method, then please by all means prove me wrong.
>>2728426
>>2728440
And here because I'm not a fucking memer without sources.
"Frank’s compositional style marked a radical departure from what Americans had come to expect in photography. Subjects are often out of focus, picture planes are unbalanced, and exposures are inflected by noise and grain."
"Frank shot from the hip and worked intuitively"
(direct influence by Evans' choosing to not know what he was photographing in the Subway Portrait series)
The whole work was part of a cross-country roadtrip.
I'm not going to link you a million JSTOR links because I'm not in my fucking photography classes right now but jesus christ. Just google. This page pretty much sums up that all of those Lomography points are applicable to Frank's method.
http://www.transmopolis.com/2009/09/robert-franks-masterpiece-the-americans-at-50/
Also,
>not your Internet-slang lomography
I find it funny that you choose to define lomography based on your meme-defined shots of hyper-vignetted, cross-processed snapshit style which have absolutely nothing to do with their own method then berate me for defining it on their own guidelines.
posting sum robert frank
It is just as valid as any other style of photography. And just as with every other style there are those within it that have actual talent and those that do not.
>>2728054
I found a deeper interest in photography thanks to lomo. It provides a fun 'everything goes' entry point into a often very elitist hobby. They sell the idea of picking up any old camera and experimenting which is pretty alluring. Some people never stop liking the aesthetic but I think most will want to change things up and get better at photos after the initial novelty wears off.
I wouldn't have picked up photography without this shit. No igritts. Good flame thread though.
>>2728738
>They sell the idea of picking up any old camera and experimenting which is pretty alluring.
You know, the ideology they sell isn't bad but for some reason the actual result is well... opposite?
They sell overpriced shit cameras, they inflated the price of cheap cameras, among other shit.
That said, thanks to lomography there's a resurgence of medium format film, and film in general, so I'm thankful for that.
Nice to see some real photography discussion for once.
And in a lomo thread too!
its the dogma 95 of photo ie. total unsalvable dogeshit.
