# Lomography Fading?



## cgw (Aug 16, 2013)

The Toronto store is closing next week. LA and Manchester are done. More to follow?

Toronto Lomography store destined for the deadpool


----------



## Derrel (Aug 16, 2013)

Probably just not enough lo-fidelity hipsters around to support the sales of film and crappy cameras; the lo-fi aesthetic has been co-opted by digital filter effects from Hipstamatic and to a lesser degree, Instagram, and Snapseed. https://support.google.com/snapseed/

If a person wants lo-fidelity, artsy-fartsy looks, it's dead easy, and CHEAP, to get them from a smartphone's camera using Hipstamatic, or Instagram, or editing them with Snapseed, or whatever. A few years ago, those options did not exist. And now that they do, the technology makes it easy, and basically no-cost, to make unique "authentic" images faster, easier, and in IMMEDIATE, real-time. The new-factor, and the wow-factor of lomography has as I said, been co-opted by digital filter effects.

Buying a $6 roll of film, and then paying a lab $12.99 for 36 decent 4x6 color prints still does not solve the hipster desire to get images onto social media and to get their cool, artsy images SEEN by OTHER people. That's the real issue I think...people want to disseminate their images, share them, send them to many people. With prints, those people need to be within arm's length in order to just see the images, and they cannot take "ownership" of the image unless a copy print is made for each person.

Lest it sound like I am anti-film, I am not. Film is a wonderful medium, and so are printed images. I'm just describing what I see has happened to photography now that there are new,different ways of taking, viewing,editing,and showing,storing, and sharing images. An iPhone with Hipstamatic and some Hipstamatic "lenses" and the various "Hipstamtic film stocks" is also more-versatile than a lomo, with one lens, and only one film emulsion type per roll.


----------



## timor (Aug 16, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Probably just not enough lo-fidelity hipsters around to support the sales of film and crappy cameras; the lo-fi aesthetic has been co-opted by digital filter effects from Hipstamatic and to a lesser degree, Instagram, and Snapseed. https://support.google.com/snapseed/


Yup, you're right. Nowadays everything could be simulated on computers. Soon they gonna put microchips in brains of all of us to simulate, sorry, stimulate politically correct thinking. Future is bright.


----------



## ShaneF (Aug 16, 2013)

That's to bad, i have in ha Toronto store a few times just poking around and the staff there were really nice and informative.  I had been in other stores and the general census was if you did not know as much as them you were not worth talking to unless you were buying something.. I hope they do well in their next venture.


----------



## timor (Aug 16, 2013)

ShaneF said:


> That's to bad, i have in ha Toronto store a few times just poking around and the staff there were really nice and informative.  I had been in other stores and the general census was if you did not know as much as them you were not worth talking to unless you were buying something.. I hope they do well in their next venture.


 The prices Lomography is putting on theirs stuff is just too much. Even for those hipsters.


----------



## ShaneF (Aug 16, 2013)

yeah i was not there to buy anything just to look around, maybe ill go back when they are having their 

"were not hip anymore and our insane prices stopped us from selling anything sale: and drop of some mcdonalds applications and squeegees for them


----------



## terri (Aug 16, 2013)

> Buying a $6 roll of film, and then paying a lab $12.99 for 36 decent 4x6  color prints still does not solve the hipster desire to get images onto  social media and to get their cool, artsy images SEEN by OTHER people.  That's the real issue I think...people want to disseminate their images,  share them, send them to many people. With prints, those people need to  be within arm's length in order to just see the images, and they cannot  take "ownership" of the image unless a copy print is made for each  person.



What's nauseating is that this compulsion to post this stuff to be SEEN by OTHER people, who are also posting this stuff to be SEEN by OTHER people, has to fall into a category being defined as "hip".    

From my day, being hip meant you were NOT blindly following the herd.    Guess I'm old and marginalized.


----------



## cgw (Aug 16, 2013)

terri said:


> > Buying a $6 roll of film, and then paying a lab $12.99 for 36 decent 4x6  color prints still does not solve the hipster desire to get images onto  social media and to get their cool, artsy images SEEN by OTHER people.  That's the real issue I think...people want to disseminate their images,  share them, send them to many people. With prints, those people need to  be within arm's length in order to just see the images, and they cannot  take "ownership" of the image unless a copy print is made for each  person.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Same old "herd of independent minds" issue, I guess. Recall part of a Nan Goldin doc where she talked about getting together and partying with her boozed/drugged-out trans-gender demimonde pals and showing *slides* of her and others' work in the late 70s/early 80s. Sometimes the present just doesn't measure up to the past.

Here's a bit more background on Lomograhy's problems:

Looks like Lomography (company) might be in trouble - Rangefinderforum.com

If Hipster Cameras Are So Popular, Why Did L.A.'s Lomography Stores Close Down? - Los Angeles - Arts - Public Spectacle

I never got the ploy to "brand" film photography. Too many cheap, functioning 35mm SLRs with sharp 50mm lenses to bother with toy cameras, especially after film and processing became pricey and less accessible. Looks like online is where they'll make a stand.


----------



## ABrosig (Aug 16, 2013)

To paraphrase an old expression, If all you do is follow the herd, the view never changes.


----------



## Gavjenks (Aug 18, 2013)

terri said:


> > Buying a $6 roll of film, and then paying a lab $12.99 for 36 decent 4x6  color prints still does not solve the hipster desire to get images onto  social media and to get their cool, artsy images SEEN by OTHER people.  That's the real issue I think...people want to disseminate their images,  share them, send them to many people. With prints, those people need to  be within arm's length in order to just see the images, and they cannot  take "ownership" of the image unless a copy print is made for each  person.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The point is that by using your retro-y filters and/or lomography cameras, you are laboring under the impression that you are NOT blindly following the herd.

The herd shoots vanilla photographs that are sharp and properly white balanced.  Whereas you lead the herd with your avante garde concept of warm filters and light leaks.

Or so you delude yourself into thinking at least.  Long enough to fork over some cash for a bad camera.  = lomography business plan.



Failing probably for all the reasons Derrel astutely points out.


----------



## Tiller (Aug 18, 2013)

I just bought 2 packs of lomography 120 film bc it was the cheapest I found. Sad to see them go.


----------



## limr (Aug 18, 2013)

Tiller said:


> I just bought 2 packs of lomography 120 film bc it was the cheapest I found. Sad to see them go.



The store is closing but the company is still around and their film should still be available online.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 18, 2013)

The serious photography critics, you know, the people who write for The Luminous Landscape, The Online Photographer, PetaPixel, etc.,etc., often write essays encouraging photography enthusiasts to "build an audience." Alain Briot, of of America's more-respected landcape photographers, often writes about building an audience for one's work. And to an extent, a lot of us have taken some steps on that front, with web sites, blogs, sharing sites, posting images to Facebook, or to TPF, and so on. We have "*an audience*". On the web, it is easy to deliver images to our audience. And I think that is why digitally edited, "artistic-type" images have become so,so popular; the sheer ease and efficiency of distributing our images to our audience members, no matter where they are.

I follow a few people on Instagram; I admire these peoples' photographic ability, and I enjoy seeing their creativity, their lives, their sense of who they are. And....I get all this from my phone and or my personal computer's internet connection, via Instagram, and also some from Flickr. And some, from Facebook.

Twenty-five plus years ago when I was in college, I took some mass media and communications classes, where we studied the history of mass communication. The, the "next big thing" was supposed to be self-publishing, using Xerography machines! Err, I mean...photocopiers! Can you believe it? Photocopiers! (Please insert your, "OMG, how quaint," comments here.)

Well, turns out nobody really foresaw the development of the internet, from a collection of far-flung university science geeks to...people uploading photos instantly, so that multiple viewers, all across the world, could access those images in real-time. And if the desire of photographers and creative people is to "build an audience", well, the various social media channels really have brought that to within the reach of almost anybody. No need for a printing press! I think the ease of uploading digitally-generated images, with no need for lab time, lab expenses, scanning, and so on, has made the process of how the images are created much less-important than the end results to a certain group of photography artists. Lomography started in the 1990's. The lo-fidelity aesthetic is very charming. It's no surprise that one of Instagram's 16 filters is called Lo-Fi. No, it's not the same thing. But it's not about "the thing" and how it was made, or what kind of camera shot the shot--it is about "building the audience".


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 18, 2013)

Idk. I mean, they did raise over $1m on Kickstarter for their all-metal Petzval lens, so maybe they're trying to remain relevant in other ways?


----------



## Nat. (Aug 18, 2013)

I hope they stay around. I have my gripes with Lomography (thirty quid for a hulk of plastic tat? Yeah...no...) but their 35mm film is the cheapest per frame on Amazon.


----------



## KmH (Aug 18, 2013)

terri said:


> From my day, being hip meant you were NOT blindly following the herd.


QFT!


----------



## Vautrin (Aug 18, 2013)

I honestly think Lomography doesn't have the right price point.  Their development, their film, and their cameras are all more expensive than I can get independently.

Seriously, when I can get a Pentax K1000 for $40 why would I by a Zenit camera for $200?

If I can buy a Yashica or Rolliflex for $60 why would I buy a Lubitel for $200?

They do some cool things, and have some cool concepts, but honestly their prices are outrageous.

$12 for development and prints?  I have a pro lab that does it for half the price, why would I frequent LomoLabs?


----------



## Tiller (Aug 18, 2013)

Vautrin said:


> $12 for development and prints?  I have a pro lab that does it for half the price, why would I frequent LomoLabs?



Thats actually right around the going price for 120 film.


----------



## compur (Aug 18, 2013)

Vautrin said:


> I honestly think Lomography doesn't have the right price point.  Their development, their film, and their cameras are all more expensive than I can get independently.
> 
> Seriously, when I can get a Pentax K1000 for $40 why would I by a Zenit camera for $200?
> 
> If I can buy a Yashica or Rolliflex for $60 why would I buy a Lubitel for $200?



Indeed.

Lomography is an example of over-profiteering what began as a simple, inexpensive and fun type of photography into an over-marketed rip-off. Selling cheaply made plastic cameras for hundreds of dollars. For the price of one of these cameras a newby to film photography could buy a decent used medium format camera or a 35mm camera with a bag full of lenses and really get involved with the art.

BTW, I don't mean that there is anything wrong with Toy Camera  Photography (its original name) -- I think it's a fun and valid form of  art and is akin to pinhole photography. But, the whole idea originaly was to use cheap cameras found at flea markets, thrift stores, etc. for a few dollars, one of the most popular of these being the old Diana camera and its clones. If one could create engaging photos with these low-tech cameras then it was a real demonstration of one's competence as a photographer.

IMO, Freestyle always had a better approach (and still does) with their Holga cameras which sell for, I think, about $25 for a basic camera -- a reasonable price for a manufactured item of this type in today's world. You can spend more if you wish but you can still get started with a basic Holga at a reasonable price.

There are also plenty of old box and folding cameras that accept 120 film available for about the same price as the Holga. Image quality from some of these may be a little too good to keep it in the Toy Camera class but you can always shoot them through a Vaseline smeared filter.


----------



## limr (Aug 18, 2013)

Vautrin said:


> If I can buy a Yashica or Rolliflex for $60 why would I buy a Lubitel for $200?



Well, you can actually get a real Lubitel for $60. And a real Rolliflex will probably go for more than $60, unless you're good at tinkering and buy one that needs a little TLC.

I love my (original) Lubitel.

But Lomography was never really marketed towards people who would think about such things. They are geared for people who don't really want to think too much about their gear. Sure, Holgas, for example, appeal to some people who are more interested than your average Williamsburg hipster, but they are a somewhat ancillary market. So, as has been pointed out, if people could get that cool retro look and think _even less _about it, then the exodus from Lomography to Instagram makes perfect sense.


----------



## limr (Aug 18, 2013)

compur said:


> ...
> 
> BTW, I don't mean that there is anything wrong with Toy Camera  Photography (its original name) -- I think it's a fun and valid form of  art and is akin to pinhole photography. But, the whole idea originaly was to use cheap cameras found at flea markets, thrift stores, etc. for a few dollars, one of the most popular of these being the old Diana camera and its clones. If one could create engaging photos with these low-tech cameras then it was a real demonstration of one's competence as a photographer.
> ...



True, but I think they were able to get away with those prices because the people who jumped on that bandwagon didn't want to figure out how to use or fix those old cameras they could find. They wanted something that would work right out of the box so they could be INSTANTLY COOL! 



> There are also plenty of old box and folding cameras that accept 120 film available for about the same price as the Holga. Image quality from some of these may be a little too good to keep it in the Toy Camera class but you can always shoot them through a Vaseline smeared filter.



Or reverse the lens!

And speaking of 'too good to keep it in the Toy Camera class", I have to once again beat the dead horse and mention my Lubitel. Remarkably good for a piece of plastic.

I didn't buy any Lomography cameras until recently when I paid $35 for the Konstruktor kit, but that's because I wanted to put it together. And if I remember correctly, when it came out and the price was revealed, the reaction seemed to be "Finally, they got the price right!"


----------



## compur (Aug 18, 2013)

^ Yes, bandwagon jumpers is right. It started out as bandwagon _avoiders _(avoiding "proper" cameras) and it ended up as bandwagon _jumpers _because what was uncool became cool just because it wasn't what was cool.  Or something like that.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 18, 2013)

I was shopping in Whole Foods a few years ago in Austin, TX, and I saw an ad for a lomographer(?). And this person was dead serious.

Stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason I guess lol


----------



## Vautrin (Aug 19, 2013)

limr said:


> Vautrin said:
> 
> 
> > If I can buy a Yashica or Rolliflex for $60 why would I buy a Lubitel for $200?
> ...



Guess I just got lucky then


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Aug 20, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> I was shopping in Whole Foods a few years ago in Austin, TX, and I saw an ad for a lomographer(?). And this person was dead serious.
> 
> Stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason I guess lol



Lomography is still huge in Austin. yay for hipsters :er:


----------



## cgw (Aug 22, 2013)

SoulfulRecover said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > I was shopping in Whole Foods a few years ago in Austin, TX, and I saw an ad for a lomographer(?). And this person was dead serious.
> ...



So huge they decided to close the store, right? Maybe I missed the irony?


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Aug 22, 2013)

the store may have closed but all the kids are still into it. pretty much all I hear about at the art institute and it seems exceedingly popular with my younger stepsisters generation.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 22, 2013)

limr said:


> Vautrin said:
> 
> 
> > If I can buy a Yashica or Rolliflex for $60 why would I buy a Lubitel for $200?
> ...




Are you sure you don't mean Rollicord


----------



## Derrel (Aug 22, 2013)

It's kinda' weird...the very FIRST lo-fidelity images I ever saw were in Popular Photography, back in the mid/late 1970's, and had been taken with the old Diana plastic-lens camera...but that movement, the lo-fidelity movement, never really caught on until the 1990's. Not sure why, exactly...maybe it was the old so-called wisdom that a photo always needed to be "sharp" in order to be worthwhile, in order to have photographic validity. Kind of the way the Pictorialism movement of the late 1800's to early 1900's was quashed so,so mercilessly by dogmatic A-holes like Ansel Adams, with his tireless running down of his nemesis, William Mortensen, whom Adams called "the devil" and "the anti-Christ"...

50 Watts

I dunno...it seems like photography has a pretty regular pendulum...fads and trends come and go, come and go, and things swing between realism and altered reality, between "accurate" ways of photographing, and "altering" ways of photographing. And whenever one,single company gets big and dominant, it seems like that company eventually loses its hold; once Rolleiflex was a dominant player; once the Speed and Crown Graphics dominated; at one time Polaroid was a force, now Polaroid is pretty much dead and gone; Kodak was a colossus, now it's bankrupt; Leica once "owned" journalism, then lost out to Nikon, then Nikon lost favor to Canon; and so on and so on.

I put forth the idea that *almost ANY "idea" or "method" in popular photographic culture has at most, a 20-year lifespan* as a leading-edge idea or method.


----------



## cgw (Aug 22, 2013)

SoulfulRecover said:


> the store may have closed but all the kids are still into it. pretty much all I hear about at the art institute and it seems exceedingly popular with my younger stepsisters generation.



Guess none of them own smartphones. Frankly, I've never seen anyone 18-25 with a toy/plastic/Lomography Store-type camera in any place they might show up in downtown Toronto. Lots of iPhones pointed everywhere, though.


----------



## Gavjenks (Aug 22, 2013)

> _I honestly think Lomography doesn't have the right price point. Their development, their film, and their cameras are all more expensive than I can get independently._
> 
> _Seriously, when I can get a Pentax K1000 for $40 why would I by a Zenit camera for $200?_
> 
> _If I can buy a Yashica or Rolliflex for $60 why would I buy a Lubitel for $200?_


First of all, rolleiflex for $60 -- lol?!  Even Yashicas typically sell for closer to $200.   If you're talking about garage sales from people who don't know what they're doing, then sure, you might get it for $5. But that's hardly a fair measure of going market prices for things. That's just taking advantage of ignorant people. You also spend hours of your time driving around, which adds up to some significant money in effort.

First 5 recently successfully sold listings on ebay for rolleiflexes in good looking condition, in order of showing up on search, no censorship:

1) $2,599 MINT ?mint ? Rollei Rolleiflex 2 8F TLR Film Camera W Planar 80mm F 2 8 W Filter | eBay
2) $1,525 MINT Rolleiflex 2 8F Camera | eBay
3) $203 RISKY "AS IS" FROM CLUELESS SELLER Rolleiflex 2 8F Camera | eBay
4) $100 BROKEN SHUTTER Rollei Rolleiflex Automat MX 3 5 Leather Case | eBay
5) $350 BROKEN DOOR LATCH Rolleiflex 3 5F | eBay

Yashicas are certainly much cheaper, but still a search shows $129, $299, $227, $75 (no guarantees or comment on function, and "as is"), and $99

So the lomography copies are actually on the cheap side of things.




Second of all, newly manufactured cameras are very different beasts. They are brand new. I assure you that a rolleiflex new cost way more than the equivalent of $200 in its day. I found one advertisement from around 1960 for $180 ish dollars, which would be approximately $800-900 in 2013 US dollars.

Some of the discount off of that is due to it no longer being state of the art, but some of the discount is also due to it being damn old and usually slightly falling apart and missing things or possibly being about to break. Plus no warranty.  As you can see above, the truly mint-condition rolleis, no scratches on them ones with all accessories sell for thousands potentially, and have thus appreciated in price.  When you buy a new lomo camera, you are getting brand new, not beaten, up, and warrantied to work for awhile.  Though almost certainly lower quality, these are reasonably competitive features.


----------



## cgw (Aug 22, 2013)

"It's kinda' weird...the very FIRST lo-fidelity images I ever saw were in Popular Photography, back in the mid/late 1970's, and had been taken with the old Diana plastic-lens camera...but that movement, the lo-fidelity movement, never really caught on until the 1990's. Not sure why, exactly...maybe it was the old so-called wisdom that a photo always needed to be "sharp" in order to be worthwhile, in order to have photographic validity."

Yup, that was the early 90s zeitgeist. Zines everywhere, not much online, lots of un-slick photocopied DIY material--posters, handbills, postcards. Fun!

Nice NYT piece on "Bikini Kill," the preeminent Riot Grrrl band of the time that cranked out tons of the stuff:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/19/magazine/look-riotgrrrl.html


----------



## Vautrin (Aug 22, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> > _I honestly think Lomography doesn't have the right price point. Their development, their film, and their cameras are all more expensive than I can get independently._
> >
> > _Seriously, when I can get a Pentax K1000 for $40 why would I by a Zenit camera for $200?_
> >
> ...



I bought a Yashica for 60....  Brilliant condition, no problems.  Double lens, waist level finder.  No light meter but who needs one?

They had a rolliflex for the same price a few weeks ago that dissapeared between when I went away to "think about it" and came back

Guess I'm just lucky to have a good drug dealer (photography salesperson) nearby


----------



## terri (Aug 22, 2013)

Derrel said:


> It's kinda' weird...the very FIRST lo-fidelity images I ever saw were in Popular Photography, back in the mid/late 1970's, and had been taken with the old Diana plastic-lens camera...but that movement, the lo-fidelity movement, never really caught on until the 1990's. Not sure why, exactly...maybe it was the old so-called wisdom that a photo always needed to be "sharp" in order to be worthwhile, in order to have photographic validity. Kind of the way the Pictorialism movement of the late 1800's to early 1900's was quashed so,so mercilessly by dogmatic A-holes like Ansel Adams, with his tireless running down of his nemesis, William Mortensen, whom Adams called "the devil" and "the anti-Christ"...
> 
> 50 Watts
> 
> ...



Yep, yep, and yep.     Thanks for even mentioning William Mortensen...not many do.   He is a hero of mine, no surprise there I guess, given the stuff I do.   You've also reminded me I meant to search out this book....whee!, at $200 + gotta be on the Christmas wish list.


----------



## Gavjenks (Aug 23, 2013)

> Guess I'm just lucky to have a good drug dealer (photography salesperson) nearby


Is everything priced like that?  If so, do you enjoy your day job? Because if not, you could always just quit, go buy that guys' entire stock of everything, get a nice home product studio setup, and sell it all on ebay part time then go play golf or whatever =P


----------

