Lomo?

[zona5101]

So to be honest, I did not know what "lomo" was...so I looked it up. It seems to be the process of manipulating photos so they resemble images based on poor camera/lens design where glare, vingettes, wierd color shifts and generally poor lens quality are predominent.
WOW, who knew. I've been a lomo master all these years!

Seriously, am I missing something or is that the essence of lomo?

[RLucas]

Yep! People are buying a gazzillion dollars worth of gear and software to emulate images made with a $10.00 camera! I see some irony there!

[dcclark]

Yep! Because, y'know, the old days were always better...

Personally, I do like some of the effects, if they're relevant to the subject (especially old or abandoned buildings). But like many such effects, it's easy to overdo it.

[CiiVii]

It IS wacky.

The most common theme I've seen with lomography is amusement park pictures, specifically ferris wheels and swings. Maybe it evokes nostalgia for those of us with albums full of those pictures from our youth... If you want some nostalgia, there are 484 ferris wheel photographs for sale right now on Etsy ;-)

[OsmosisStudios]

I do "Lomo"-effect images really easily: an old FE and some ANCIENT film.

[junglebear]

I don't really get Lomo, I think it's worse than HDR tbh

[zona5101]

What do you think?
A lomo processed HDR in a shadowbox frame with a large semi-translucent photographer mark dead center!!
Like garlic to a vampire!!

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by zona5101

Seriously, am I missing something or is that the essence of lomo?

Lomography was originally a term specifically for photography done with specific film cameras. Since processing the film is expensive and some people think there's a "wow" factor there, it was pretty inevitable that people would digitally process images to have a lomo look -- just like people process files and add borders to make digital photos look like they came out of a Polaroid in the 70s.

So no, lomo doesn't really refer to the editing technique, but to an actual film camera and the types of results it gave. I guess now the uses are mostly synonymous, though.

The Holga 120 is a popular starting point for this "toy camera" style of photography, but processing can be an issue for some people. The lab I use charges $12.50 to process and print 10 exposures to 4x6". I mostly see Holgas in the hands of overprecious hipsters.

I can appreciate some of the genuine film shots, but not many. The processed digital files are not my thing, but then neither are any cross-processed or "vintage" edits, heavily tonemapped HDR, oversaturated colors, etc etc. To each their own.

[vandergus]

It is weird, though, the fact that worsening the technical aspects of an image will sometimes make it more appealing. I'm generally underwhelmed by the pictures I get from my iPhone, but run a photo through one of those polaroid apps and it's magically interesting. I know it's a gimmic, it's just weird the way our brains work.

[BCampbell]

Yeah, in my opinion that just means that the subject and composition of the photo isn't very good to start with.

As they say, polish a turd all you want...

I think that after looking at enough examples we become exposed enough that we lose that effect. I know that I tought the first crazy tonemapped HDR I saw was cool, and now I can't stand the stuff.