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?
© make do and mend | All rights reserved.