If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Join the challenge of mediocrity | Ray Fischer | Digital Photography | 2 | April 15th 09 06:51 PM |
Kodak ups stakes in mediocrity war | RichA[_4_] | Digital Photography | 31 | January 17th 09 05:36 AM |
As if anyone cares - more mediocrity | anonomous individual | 35mm Photo Equipment | 14 | December 30th 05 12:38 AM |
Sony Memory Stick PRO versus regular Memory Stick (speed factor) | eb7g | Digital Photography | 8 | December 9th 04 11:51 PM |
Differences between Sony Memory Stick & memory Stick Pro vs Memory Stick Duo? | zxcvar | Digital Photography | 4 | November 28th 04 10:48 PM |