Talk:Lomography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Photography  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 

Is Lomography something other than marketing?[edit]

Is really Lomography something else than marketing ? The article should be either removed or expanded. If we keep it it the ten rules are important. In fact there is a strong tendancy in modern photography to use bad cheap camera for creative purposes. Lomography seems to me a commercial exploitation of this phenomenon.

I don't know anything about it, I just felt that those ten "rules" were useless in an encyclopedia. If Lomography is really just ordinary photography with a different name and marketing campaign, then by all means I'd support the removal of this article. Bryan
Hey, why not keep it after all! I heard this word recently for the first time and was taken to a Lomography exhibition. That might just be marketing after all, but why not address this in the article, so that clueless readers like me can learn something in the 'pedia about a "new concept" they hear about. - User:Olivier
I'm not regisgtered, but I've made a few changes to this page in the past to get rid of some of the Lomography fanboy stuff. I own a Lomo, and while it's OK, it's being sold by a very clever marketing campaign. Keeping the article short and to the point is the best idea. Those ten rules had to go.

As I can understand how Lomography is seen as a brand more than a different camera, you have to keep in mind that some might not have any idea of this and look it up here. I think it belong here. --Peter Sjöberg 15:39, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note how there is no article for Fahrvergnügen, a similarly designed neologism - a promotion disguised as a philosophy. I have attempted to comb out most of the NPOV, while retaining most of the article's structure. The 10 rules already crescendo, they need not climax. --67.164.10.226 09:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose this is a bit of opinion, but I do believe Lomography is more than marketing. Many people take part without ever hearing of the marketing campaign, myself included. In addition, this would seem to be a poor campaign in that lomography encompasses many cameras that are not LOMOs: The Brownie, Holga, Action Sampler, etc. The real idea is to find a cheap old camera at a garage sale and be surprised by the results. Perhaps a larger goal is to make photo art more accessible to amateurs. Then again, this is how I see it. Juicifer451 17:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I do believe the article belongs, but including the "10 rules" does seem like catering to the marketing aspect. I thought this the first time I read the article without reading the discussion. I was looking specifically for lomograpy, though, so I do think the article belongs. --Aaslatten 03:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a fact that "Lomography" seems to be interesting to some people. So perhaps other people want to know what the term means. Hence this article. Wikipedia has a lot of articles about completely useless (like XXX-Cola) or even dangerous (like XXXXX Cigarettes) products. And as the "10 rules" figure as the "ideology" of this product they are quite necessary to understand the concept. Wikipedia even has a whole artice on the Twelve-step program of Alcoholics Anonymous, which some people find equally ridiculous (not to mention several religous or policital concepts). If you have found some profound criticism of "Lomography" in the public, then add it. Vicki Reitta (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Alfred Klomp's essay[edit]

I've removed the link to Alfred Klomp's essay. As listed under the Wikipedia External Link guidlines, "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority" are normally to be avoided. This is clearly a personal site and opinion. Omnibotz 04:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to Alfred Klomp's essay on why he doesn't like "LOMOgraphy". It was removed. I've just now reverted the removal.

This essay strikes me as opinionated but perceptive. It points out that Lomography is a commercial wheeze to turn the use of a mediocre camera (resold at a huge profit) to create poor photos into a fashionable and glamorous activity. But this summary makes it sound humorless, which I don't think it is. Anyway, it's a healthy counterbalance to the sites offering Lomography boosterism.

The link was removed with the edit summary: it was more about what the Lomo isnt and more about how much it costs. First, this WP article isn't titled "Lomo" or "Lomo LC-A"; it's titled "Lomography". And "Lomography" is very much about relative pricing (buy in Russia cheap, sell outside expensively), and it's what Klomp's article is about. Thus the link deserves to stay. -- Hoary 02:24, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

Good to see that this link was reinstated. I too am of the opinion that Lomography is merely a marketing hype and unfortunately has led to the fact that a perfectly usable and decent quality Russian camera (i.e., the LOMO LC-A) has become ridiculously expensive. David Haardt, 1 Jan 2006, 20.13 (CET)

Those cheaper alternatives[edit]

This edit added: It is undeniablt true that the same results could be acheived with any run of the mill automatic camera from the 1950's-60's.

I changed that to The same results could be achieved with any run-of-the-mill automatic camera from the 1960s or 70s.

That was changed again to: The same results could be achieved with any run-of-the-mill automatic camera from the circa 1950-70, at a fraction of the price. (A subsequent edit removed the surplus the.)

I simplified that to The same results could be achieved with any run-of-the-mill automatic camera, at a fraction of the price.

Anyone who wants to reinsert dates should carefully consider when automatic (i.e. AE) cameras became run of the mill. The earliest Japanese auto-exposure camera I can think of offhand is the Olympus Auto-Eye of 1960. The transition of AE to run-of-the-mill-ness would have come some time after that. -- Hoary 10:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

More than an automatic camera, it's more of a cheaply, mass produced camera. The Brownie and Holga both fit into this category. I really wouldn't call either of those automatic, just because they don't have manual controls. Juicifer451 17:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

On "Lomography" in general -- and of course that's the subject of this article -- you certainly have a point. However, if you look at the first diff you'll see that this edit to part of which I objected was specifically about the LC-A. It read: it is undeniably true that there is nothing particularly special or unusual about the iconic LC-A model. It is a very ordinary automatic 35mm camera, the only remotely unusual features of which are etc etc. I took "automatic" here to mean automatic-exposure, and to say that AE cameras were run-of-the-mill as early as 1950 is ridiculous. -- Hoary 23:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Poor intro[edit]

I had to read down quite a long way before I had any idea of what the word "Lomography" actually meant. This should be at the top, before all the waffle about how loyal users may or may not be. 86.143.52.66 16:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. First we are told flat out that it is trademark. Then the rest of the article explains what techniques of shooting and effects constitute the "trademark." It is confusing. I assume that it is a trademark and that the trademark name has taken on other meanings regarding style and technique that the article may in fact be about. Which raises the question, what is the article about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.118.143 (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree! When I read the intro I felt like I walked into the middle of a conversation. Don't these "specialists" authors ever look something up they don't know about? No one wants to hear quibbles about fine points when you don't know what the subject is yet. But this lack of a thesis must be the most common error in all of wiki. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


What the article says now, first than Lomography being a trademark, is that it is an 'analog camera movement'. I find this absolutely obnoxious. Lomography is a trademark, and this alleged movement is nothing else than part of its marketing. I find it horrible that marketing sneaks in like that in Wikipedia. This part of the intro should be changed, as it is nothing else than the marketing of the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.231.173.81 (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Intro now seems really slanted[edit]

There is a palpable anti-lomo slant to the article now, and the first paragraph is barely readable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.240.81.77 (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Really? The only bit I don't understand is a viral/tribal marketing strategy. What else makes no sense? -- Hoary 04:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, really. Snotty. Prolix. Interesting, worthwhile, and can be improved. Midgley 01:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Viral/tribal marketing- tribal marketing is when the organisation aims at trying to make a group of consumers seem exclusive and cool if they buy the organisation's products. It's about creating a vibe and special language/words tribe members aspire to and use, to demonstrate their exclusivity/difference from the normal plebs. There are numerous places on the net to find out about this, for instance this paper mentions the LS on page 6: http://ygourven2.online.fr/webcom/cova-tribe-2001.pdf

Viral marketing is more relying on word of mouth and what people stumble across on the internet i.e. that's a cool cross processed picture- I wonder what that's about? Every time someone posts a pic by a 'lomo' camera on the net that someone else sees and likes, that's advertising for free for the organisation (someone else can probably give a better definition of viral marketing). Edit- I just found viral marketing is on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_marketing But overall it surprises me that someone chose to cut out some phrases because they personally didn't know what they meant (rather than doing a simple google search and upskilling themselves)". M

Keeping the article objective[edit]

As I read through this article on Lomography, it became obvious that many parts have a distinctly anti-lomographic bias. The writers are certainly entitled to their opinions, but this isn’t the place for them. I believe that the article should be neutral and informative – so that the reader can decide on things for themselves.

I’ve made a series of changes – detailed below:

“The name is licensed from a former state-run optics company LOMO PLC in St. Petersburg, Russia.” The Lomography trademark is not licensed. It is, however, based upon the name “LOMO”

124.180.93.125 11:38, Early 2007 (UTC)Like all monopoly agreements, prices were therefore controlled (and set high). The pricing systems of the Lomo Society generate a lot of contention on the internet. Many newcomers to the field are unaware of other cheaper sources of supply for the products they sell and/or feel a group loyalty to the society for introducing them to lomography.(from the earlier edit by M)124.180.93.125 11:38, Early 2007 (UTC) This series of comments are unnecessary. In the world of Amazon and Ebay, almost anything can be found cheaper. Customers judge and contest the prices of every online retailer – it’s the nature of things.

124.180.93.125 11:33, before August 2007 (UTC)"Dude- how knowledgeable are you about the movement and the people who get into it? Some people are genuinely unaware of cheaper sources (this page is meant to be informative after all and to help people who don't know much), others do buy cameras they know they can buy cheaper elsewhere from the LS because they do feel loyalty at being 'introduced' to lomography by the LS. They want to keep the LS going so pay more money than they should. It is illustrative of the mentality of people who support the LS and describes a psychological phenomenon involving supporters. It is very necessary to mention the controversy- as evidenced by the constant revisions here. How is this a truthful page on lomography if mention of the controversy it generates is always edited out by a) unknowledgeable people b) biased supporters- in fact it wouldn't surprise me if some of the revisions are from LS employees." M124.180.93.125 11:33, before August 2007 (UTC)

124.180.93.125 11:38, Early 2007 (UTC)Note this official list is not due to any overall coherent photographic philosophy (after all the "rules" could be applied to any camera) or attributes that the cameras share, rather it came about through a market/sales driven philosophy, that is, what cameras were available for the Lomo Society to buy and sell.(from the earlier edit by M)124.180.93.125 11:38, Early 2007 (UTC) That’s not true. Lomography produces a varied range of cameras. It’s pretty obvious that this defines a “Lomo” camera.

124.180.93.125 11:33, before August 2007 (UTC)"Dude- again you show your lack of knowledge. Here's the list of cameras they didn't make: Lomo LC-A Horizon Perfekt and Kompakt Minox GT-S Widepan 617 panoramic Polaroid Spectra and Jobpro Zenit MF-1 Zenit fotosniper Zenit 122k Zenit 412 Zenit KM Holga Seagull (did we ever figure out what model it was?) Yasuhara T981 Kiev 60 (in 645 format) Fed 5b Smena 8m Smena Symbol Lubitel (166U?) Vilia Loreo 3D After the LC-A, they started selling deadstock cameras they got cheap (mostly from the former USSR one presumes). Then branched off into other tangents i.e. the Holga, and some expensive cameras like the Minox etc... You'll find the supporters will start feeling antsy if they take lomographic style pics with a camera not on the list. It doesn't feel genuine to them." M124.180.93.125 11:33, before August 2007 (UTC)

124.180.93.125 11:38, early 2007 (UTC)—compare the popular Chinese-made Holga, ~US$80 from the Lomo Society vs. ~US$30 on eBay.(from the earlier edit by M)124.180.93.125 11:38, early 2007 (UTC) Again, I challenge you to find anything (other than Radiohead tickets or rare Nike sneakers) that isn’t less expensive on Ebay.

124.180.93.125 11:38, early 2007 (UTC)(Though others[citation needed] argue that most of the effect is due to the common use of cross-processed slide film).(from the earlier edit)124.180.93.125 11:38, early 2007 (UTC) The Lomo effect and cross processing are totally separate. Cross processing is achieved through the film, not the camera.

124.180.93.125 11:33, before August 2007 (UTC)"Again dude, your lack of understanding/widespread knowledge of the field is outstanding. What you don't get is that some people argue the 'lomo effect' (or what new people get excited about when they see a shot) is due to cross processing. Some people even report their LC-A's are just like any other (boring) compact when they run colour film through them". M124.180.93.125 11:33, before August 2007 (UTC)

Principles of Lomography have also been extended to cinema. Huh? Where?

The website also sells film at as much as 300% the price of the same film on other internet sites. Not necessary.

The section above seems to be an undated argument between two anonyms, one of whom addresses the other as "dude". This is very confusing. Please sign and date any future comment (by hitting the "~" key four times in a row), and don't interpolate your comment within anybody else's. -- Hoary 23:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

124.180.93.125 11:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)added the 4~'s, and tried to distinguish between the two posts I made i.e. early 2007 versus before August 2007. The 'dude' who I was arguing with is commenting in bold on that earlier post/edit124.180.93.125 11:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Link to Klomp's essay[edit]

I've restored the link to Klomp's essay. It's coherent and thought-provoking, unlike a lot of what's written about "Lomography".

The link has frequently been removed, usually with no comment but most recently with External links - Removed link to Alfred Klomp essay, as it originates from a personal site, and not a recognized authority. It does indeed originate from a personal site, and Klomp is not a recognized authority. But Klomp is not being presented as a recognized authority (he is not cited for any assertion within the article). And while his site is personal, it's disinterested: it doesn't make any money off "Lomographic" goods or advertising. -- Hoary 23:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

124.180.93.125 11:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)you'll find when dealing with articles on this topic that it's a bit like scientology i.e. generates a lot of contention, and often the followers who comment aren't very clued up124.180.93.125 11:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Informative links, and spam[edit]

In this edit, Eaefremov removes a lot of links, with the comment how-to entries on personal blogs are still spam here, even if they're informative.

At least one of those links -- "Why I don't like Lomography" -- is neither in a blog nor a how-to. Otherwise, too, "how-to entries on personal blogs" seems rather a hasty generalization.

To me, spam implies advertising, junk, or both. Certainly, how-to pages can come with an advertising payload, and then it's legitimate to wonder whether the links have been added primarily in order to inform or to increase revenue for the webmaster. But Klomp's essay (for one) seems to have no advertising whatever.

Let's have a reasoned discussion here, Eaefremov. You may well be right. I'm all ears. -- Hoary (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Hoary, it reads like the perfect antidote to the VM nature of the product. While we do have to be extra vigilant for spam with this kind of article, I'd go so far as to say the kind of balance Klomp provides is essential for NPOV. --mikaultalk 13:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's establish the scope, are you challenging all the links or just the Klomp essay?
Regarding the Klomp essay, it doesn't fit within the technical definition of "blog", but it is essentially an opinion piece on a personal website, albeit dedicated to the subject matter and very informed. It's only "not a blog" because it isn't in the traditional blog format, but it has all the same characteristics that make a blog a blog, and not good wikipedia material. It does provide balance, but the best thing is to not editorialize for or against Lomography at all, so as to not need to provide other editorialized POV's to balance anything out. If this essay could somehow be justified as a reliable source, and used for citations, then I would be fine with it, but I don't see how it passes any of the requirements for reliable sources.
Regarding the other links, my motivation against them and most links I tend to see in the "External links" section is that I don't think that section should be regarded as a "Google's greatest hits" for the subject of the article. I see no fundamental difference between Klomp's article and a fan-page that any clown creates that could be used as a determining factor. EAE (Holla!) 19:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Klomp first. Yes, this is indeed an opinion piece on a personal website. There's probably no clear definition of "blog", and certainly this resembles a blog in being a personal opinion piece on a personal website; to me, it's unlike most blogs in providing no way in which anyone can make feedback public, in being polished, in not being about something particularly ephemeral, and in not requesting links. Klomp is very much master of his own website, and neither in nor wanting to join some community (I almost said mutual-admiration society). Another fundamental difference is that Klomp's page is not a fan page and Klomp seems to be no clown.
Now the others. Justifiably or otherwise, Lomography is widely associated with a particular way of taking photos, and a particular color rendition. (The color part is obviously nonsense, as no lens can intensify colors.) People could reasonably come to this article and wonder about this Lomographic look. Emanuele Feronato explains how to do it in Photoshop; Thijs van der Vossen explains how to do it gimp; Frank Lazaro explains how to do it in Photoshop. The second and third of these have some advertising; the first has none. This information seems useful; as it's how-to, it can't be integrated within the article. -- Hoary (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not Klomp's site is a blog, who controls it, do they make money, and can users post comments isn't (very) important; what's important is, does this article benefit from containing a link to his site. I don't think it does; I think this article would benefit from not discussing whether Lomography is good (which would necessitate the counter opinion for balance), but simply describing Lomography for what it is - a marketing name for what is just easy photography with a cheap camera and a commonly-associated "look". The Klomp article is being included in the External Links section simply because it doesn't fit anywhere else (like as a citation), but its presence as a counter seems necessitated by an otherwise unbalanced, unsourced, and generally weak article. If a similar column, even an editorial, could be found in a reliable source, and used as a citation, that would be an improvement. EAE (Holla!) 02:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
People, even if they are wondering about the look, would NOT come here to read about how to fake the look. They definitely wouldn't come here to read about how to fake it in Gimp (who uses that, anyway?), they know to google for that kind of stuff. These links generate clutter, the fact that there are two links about faking Lomography with Photoshop is bad, the fact that two of the three how-to links have advertising is bad. I looked through Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, and these three links look like #2 (unverifiable research), #12, #14, and maybe #s 4, 5, and 6, although that's harder to back up. Also, the Klomp link fails #1, #2 (unverifiable research), and #12. EAE (Holla!) 02:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I use Gimp. Recently I've been using it almost every day. -- Hoary (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Is lomography an art or just a trend?[edit]

Is lomography an art or just a trend? bunch of teenagers today are very excited about lomography. in fact, some of them don't really understand the concept or the idea of lomography itself. do they buy those cameras because they are interested? or they just want to look cool holding it because it is very in fashion today?--Ayusadha (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a silly hipster trend, nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.166.8 (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that explained it much better than the article. Muad (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

BBC Documentary[edit]

There is a BBC Documentary on Lomography that you can find on youtube. It was very illuminating for me. It seems lomography is a cultural, or at least subcultural attitude about photo art.72.78.161.58 (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear[edit]

Seems I have discovered a nest-full of the very worst aspects of Wikipedia: it is nothing more than an on-line commercial advertisement for some rip-off merchants in Austria. The repeated removal from the article of the essay http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/lomography/index.htm exposing "Lomography" for what it is, together with the fact that the camera's actual brand name redirects to this article (which is like seeing the entry for cpu's redirect to the entry for intel) makes matters even worse. Meowy 18:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately there is a link pointing to Lomography-article at Camerapedia and it has that link pointing to that Klomp’s article. --juhtolv (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

nothing more than a bunch of smart guys[edit]

As`far as i can see this is nothing more than a bunch of smart guys relaising that you really can sell ice to eskimos, im sure most of the people buying these products grew up in the digital age and so by buying in to this concept are living out some romantic notion of the good old days of 35mm film, in truth anyone wanting to experience this would purchase a good Nikon 35mm SLR film camera and commence their journey of fulfilling photography, the cameras and concepts i see for sale here are low in quality and simply exploiting unknowing individuals...........but i gues thats what marketing is all about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.100.143.70 (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


Well then, are movies art or just marketing?[edit]

With all the mass gurillia marketing hype associated with movies, commercialization as placement ads, and the merchandising everything from "Spaceballs" the toliet paper, to "Spaceballs" the flame thrower (Context: the Space Balls movie comments on this phenomnon of a movie francise), and all other media attached to this art. Example, Star Trek, forming conventions and what not (meeting as Lomographers do with their "Competitions and world congresses")...

Don't film makers meet, take work shops and discuss story ideas and film, and their production is displayed (in movie houses, film festivals), then overly hyped marketed and sold, you buy some Jason masks for halloween some Scream masks, you play Saw the video game, You buy the Star war cups from Mc Donald's, the Anakin pepsi. You read the novels, heck you even dress up like them at conventions.

How are Lomographs any different, as artist converse discuss techniques and live in their geeky subculture, and photograph, their works are displayed, and the cameras are overzealously marketed and sold in shops.

Or what about Disney? Just a bunch of artistic cartoons, and it mushroomed into theme parks, toys, Playstation games, and even spill out into the "real world" as suburbs (those weird suburbs owned by disney), and even a sport team. Yet, Disney animation is still considered art.

Lomographer's pages[edit]

I removed the following links to personal pages of photographers embracing the lomography techniques: Fabio Pluda - Lomographer, LOMOBAIRES - Lomographer. These pages are not referenced in the text and have been added (possibly by their respective owners) without any explanation or good reason. The page of Fabio Pluda is a particularly obnoxious one: the link has been already removed (by someone else) and it has reappeared since, both times it was added by an editor with the same IP address, without comments, without any further edit, without reference in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.154.22.246 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Changes and/or Additions[edit]

Hello. I am part of the Lomography Online Team and I would like to suggest updating this article with newer information. I have noticed that some of the details are obsolete. For example, some of the cameras mentioned in the entry have been discontinued and activities for film photography enthusiasts have been added to the Lomography roster. I am suggesting these changes purely for accuracy and not for promotional purposes. I would really appreciate your feedback regarding this matter. --Amalalle (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC) {{Requested edit}}

Hello everyone. I am requesting this article to be reviewed and updated. I am a member of the Lomography Online Team but have been working with a Wikipedia editor to improve the quality of this article. Here is the draft we have come up with. This draft includes what I think is a more organized presentation of data with sources other than the Lomography website itself. Please have a look, and if you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me through my talk page. Thank you very much. Amalalle (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The text looks good to me. Any reason why the three images already there are omitted? Maybe they add value? Perhaps they could be placed in a gallery template? Woz2 (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The three images were replaced with newer photos in order to communicate better what Lomography is. I think including product shots as well as sample shots highlights both the retail and artistic sides of Lomography's operations.Amalalle (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)