Tuesday, 25 September 2012

Lomography vs Photography


When I heard last week that the Guardian were looking for lomography photo submissions, on a 'travel' theme I decided to submit a couple of action-sampler shots I'd taken on a trip to Barcelona a few years ago. I was happy when they emailed me back the next day, asking if they could use one of them (above) in their online gallery.

I don't think mine is a particularly amazing shot, but I quite like how bright and cheerful photo looks and I love playing with four frames, not knowing what you'll get when the film's developed. I wasn't quite sure about the 3D wall used to display the photos on the site, but I thought the other entries were all really good - it was only when I scrolled down a bit to read the comments that I was a little disappointed. A lot of readers had left negative comments about the photos that had been chosen - I guess this is quite common on message boards in general. But a lot of the comments seemed quite bitchy and were along the lines of lomography being an expensive hobby for 'hipsters' - something you could easily achieve with a camera phone instead. I'm far from snobby about photography - I value my digital camera just as much as my fisheye (which I got for a fiver from a charity shop!). But I feel that lomo photos on film cameras are meant to be cheerful, spontaneous and really.. just a bit of fun! Although some of the cameras do seem expensive, I think it's great the way Lomography have popularised taking photos on film and not taking it all so seriously. What do you think, is lomography an over-expensive hobby or do you enjoy using film cameras and not knowing how your shots will come out?


  1. I saw those comments, I didn't realise you got a photo in there too, well done.

    I picked up a similar anti-lomography vibe at a photography talk I went to a couple of weeks ago and I really think its a shame, just because its a different medium it doesn't mean its worse. Photography is about expressing yourself and how you chose to do that is up to you.

  2. Unfortunately there are photography snobs out there who just want to piss on other photography enthusiasts bonfires. I think the most important thing is whether you enjoy what you've shot however you've shot it. Photography is a form of art and art as we know is subjective. The important thing to focus on with film photography, Lomography or no, is that it's helping to keep an old fashioned medium alive. I love analogue photography and use an array of film cameras to enjoy it. Some are proper SLRs, some are Lomography brand cameras. As long as I'm having fun with it who cares what I'm shooting with?

  3. I just don't see why it matters - as far as I'm concerned, a photographer can use whatever equipment they like, as long as they're enjoying what they do and are generally pleased with the results.

    I saw the Guardian request and a bit of me did go, "Aw, boo! I don't have a lomo camera!" but, you know what, bad luck me. That's the camera they chose to feature and I've never chosen to buy one; when they do a feature on digital or Instagram, maybe I can have my turn but, in the mean time, there's no point getting bitter about it in the comments section. Some folk just like an excuse to moan.

  4. Great photo - wish I'd known about this because I took a heck of a lot of Lomo snaps in Ukraine I'm quite fond of. I keep meaning to buy a "proper" film camera, but I do enjoy Lomography a lot, too. What's the harm if people are enjoying what they do!

  5. Just read a few of the comments - what spoilsports! I don't know why people feel the need to be so miserable about things, like you said, its just a bit of fun! I can't afford to use my lomo cameras all the time but really enjoy them when I do.


© make do and mend | All rights reserved.
Blogger Template Created by pipdig