More mediocrity than you can shake a stick at
 

On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 09:52:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: http://canada.shop.lomography.com/cameras

A couple of possibilities:
1. That's all they make for film these days.
2. You blundered onto a leftover April Fool's site.

Bob

More mediocrity than you can shake a stick at
 

On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 16:47:19 -0400, tony cooper wrote:

On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 15:33:37 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 09:52:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:
: http://canada.shop.lomography.com/cameras

A couple of possibilities:
1. That's all they make for film these days.
2. You blundered onto a leftover April Fool's site.

Bob

Are you joking? Those are all cameras specifically sold for lomography
enthusiasts. They each have features used by people who like this
genre.

Just checked: Flickr has 11882 lomo-related *groups*, and over a million
and a half photos tagged "lomo". So yes, they're fairly popular in
certain circles.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/lomo/interesting/

I think that some of them (photos) look pretty nice, and some of my
friends have taken great photos with them. I suspect that the sense of
achievement that must come with getting any correctly exposed frames at
all must account for some of the appeal.

Cheers,

--
Andrew

More mediocrity than you can shake a stick at
 

On 2012-04-06 18:04:28 -0700, tony cooper said:

On 6 Apr 2012 21:38:08 GMT, Andrew Reilly
wrote:

On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 16:47:19 -0400, tony cooper wrote:

On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 15:33:37 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 09:52:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:
: http://canada.shop.lomography.com/cameras

A couple of possibilities:
1. That's all they make for film these days.
2. You blundered onto a leftover April Fool's site.

Bob

Are you joking? Those are all cameras specifically sold for lomography
enthusiasts. They each have features used by people who like this
genre.

Just checked: Flickr has 11882 lomo-related *groups*, and over a million
and a half photos tagged "lomo". So yes, they're fairly popular in
certain circles.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/lomo/interesting/

I think that some of them (photos) look pretty nice, and some of my
friends have taken great photos with them. I suspect that the sense of
achievement that must come with getting any correctly exposed frames at
all must account for some of the appeal.

Cheers,

I recognize that some people like lomography and buy cameras for this
purpose. To me, they look my mistakes in regular photography.

It is not quite my idea of great photography, but I have fun playing
with some of the Lomo effects I have available with my iPhone. The
iPhone usually takes better shots than this, but as you said, some
people like the effect. ;-)
http://db.tt/o8tFegT3

No film was harmed in the production of the above shot.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

More mediocrity than you can shake a stick at
 

Andrew Reilly wrote,on my timestamp of 7/04/2012 7:38 AM:

Just checked: Flickr has 11882 lomo-related *groups*, and over a million
and a half photos tagged "lomo". So yes, they're fairly popular in
certain circles.

C'mon! You know perfectly well "film is dead".
Those numbers cannot possibly reflect any reality.

More mediocrity than you can shake a stick at
 

On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 18:36:11 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
: On 2012-04-06 18:04:28 -0700, tony cooper said:
:
: On 6 Apr 2012 21:38:08 GMT, Andrew Reilly
: wrote:
:
: On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 16:47:19 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
:
: On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 15:33:37 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:
:
: On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 09:52:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA
: wrote:
: : http://canada.shop.lomography.com/cameras
:
: A couple of possibilities:
: 1. That's all they make for film these days.
: 2. You blundered onto a leftover April Fool's site.
:
: Bob
:
: Are you joking? Those are all cameras specifically sold for lomography
: enthusiasts. They each have features used by people who like this
: genre.
:
: Just checked: Flickr has 11882 lomo-related *groups*, and over a million
: and a half photos tagged "lomo". So yes, they're fairly popular in
: certain circles.
:
: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/lomo/interesting/
:
: I think that some of them (photos) look pretty nice, and some of my
: friends have taken great photos with them. I suspect that the sense of
: achievement that must come with getting any correctly exposed frames at
: all must account for some of the appeal.
:
: Cheers,
:
: I recognize that some people like lomography and buy cameras for this
: purpose. To me, they look my mistakes in regular photography.
:
: It is not quite my idea of great photography, but I have fun playing
: with some of the Lomo effects I have available with my iPhone. The
: iPhone usually takes better shots than this, but as you said, some
: people like the effect. ;-)
: http://db.tt/o8tFegT3
:
: No film was harmed in the production of the above shot.

I'd never heard of lomography until Tony replied to my comment earlier in this
thread. But I think I'm starting to get it. The stuff we submitted to the SI
"Bad Pictures" mandate a few years ago was (unintentional) lomography!

Bob

More mediocrity than you can shake a stick at
 

On 2012-04-06 21:04 , tony cooper wrote:
On 6 Apr 2012 21:38:08 GMT, Andrew

Just checked: Flickr has 11882 lomo-related *groups*, and over a million
and a half photos tagged "lomo". So yes, they're fairly popular in
certain circles.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/lomo/interesting/

I think that some of them (photos) look pretty nice, and some of my
friends have taken great photos with them. I suspect that the sense of
achievement that must come with getting any correctly exposed frames at
all must account for some of the appeal.

Cheers,

I recognize that some people like lomography and buy cameras for this
purpose. To me, they look my mistakes in regular photography.

Some of them look better than many people do with DSLR's. But then
photography is not about the camera.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

More mediocrity than you can shake a stick at
 

On 2012-04-07 06:43:09 -0700, Robert Coe said:

On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 18:36:11 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
: On 2012-04-06 18:04:28 -0700, tony cooper said:
:
: On 6 Apr 2012 21:38:08 GMT, Andrew Reilly
: wrote:
:
: On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 16:47:19 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
:
: On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 15:33:37 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:
:
: On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 09:52:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA
: wrote:
: : http://canada.shop.lomography.com/cameras
:
: A couple of possibilities:
: 1. That's all they make for film these days.
: 2. You blundered onto a leftover April Fool's site.
:
: Bob
:
: Are you joking? Those are all cameras specifically sold for lomography
: enthusiasts. They each have features used by people who like this
: genre.
:
: Just checked: Flickr has 11882 lomo-related *groups*, and over a million
: and a half photos tagged "lomo". So yes, they're fairly popular in
: certain circles.
:
: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/lomo/interesting/
:
: I think that some of them (photos) look pretty nice, and some of my
: friends have taken great photos with them. I suspect that the sense of
: achievement that must come with getting any correctly exposed frames at
: all must account for some of the appeal.
:
: Cheers,
:
: I recognize that some people like lomography and buy cameras for this
: purpose. To me, they look my mistakes in regular photography.
:
: It is not quite my idea of great photography, but I have fun playing
: with some of the Lomo effects I have available with my iPhone. The
: iPhone usually takes better shots than this, but as you said, some
: people like the effect. ;-)
: http://db.tt/o8tFegT3
:
: No film was harmed in the production of the above shot.

I'd never heard of lomography until Tony replied to my comment earlier in this
thread. But I think I'm starting to get it. The stuff we submitted to the SI
"Bad Pictures" mandate a few years ago was (unintentional) lomography!

Bob

There you go!

Lomography is producing the image we work to avoid, but which some,
with deliberately scuzzy cheap equipment, and some via questionable
(but fun) post processing manage to produce.

....and then there are those who seem to produce those shots without any
cheap cameras or deliberate PP. ;-)


--
Regards,

Savageduck

More mediocrity than you can shake a stick at
 

tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 7/04/2012 4:30 PM:


Just checked: Flickr has 11882 lomo-related *groups*, and over a million
and a half photos tagged "lomo". So yes, they're fairly popular in
certain circles.

C'mon! You know perfectly well "film is dead".
Those numbers cannot possibly reflect any reality.

Lomography is a film genre, but many people take digital images and
apply lomographic effects to them. This is a digital image taken of
my grandson several years ago, but with a Lomo effect added in
Photoshop with a set of Lomo Effect Actions:


And of course that "proves" all the lomography forums in flickr are from digital
images...

More mediocrity than you can shake a stick at
 

Ryan McGinnis wrote,on my timestamp of 8/04/2012 1:23 PM:

I'd never heard of lomography until Tony replied to my comment earlier in this
thread. But I think I'm starting to get it. The stuff we submitted to the SI

You need to get out more -- while I'm not a Lomo shooter, it's been a rather
widespread "thing" for almost 20 years now. :)


What, and be away from the "expertise" of the Usenet?
Never!

More mediocrity than you can shake a stick at
 

tony cooper wrote,on my timestamp of 8/04/2012 2:11 PM:

Where do you get that? I said it is a film genre, but many people
apply lomographic effects to digital images. I didn't say "all" were
from either medium. I didn't say anything about Flickr since I don't
bother with Flickr.

I dispute your statement that "many people" apply lomographic (WTH does that
word mean?) effects to digital.
You got no proof whatsoever of that, other than wishful thinking. At best, it
is imbecile to use digital for lomography.
And if you like photography, you could do a lot worse than "bother with Flickr":
for example, you could waste time with the inbred crap on the SI?