Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
I don't particularly want to join the `Film Group' but some members may be interested in these `Lomography' cameras on sale in `Urban Outfitters'? ![]()
Urban Outfitters
Have no idea whether they are expensive or good value for money.......
This is the online shop, but they were selling some models in shop (Belfast) for £50 ![]()
They can't be serious......![]()
There are easier ways of wasting perfectly good rolls of film......![]()
If you want to try and emulate " LomoStylee " take a spare bodycap for your DSLR, Drill a hole in the middle of it, Place it on your camera and set up for " Manual " mode.
Ignore what the meter tells you by a stop or two, Plus or minus, Depending on your taste.....
Then go take some piccies.....!!!
If you want to get all arty & fancy, Put some clear plastic over the hole in the body cap, Cellotape can be quite interesting.....![]()
Job Done without wasting film and spending a fortune to have it developed.
Options are keep it in colour or turn it mono, Whatever looks worse.
![]()
For the cost of a cheap plastic camera, including the lenses, I'd sooner go to ebay and buy a TLR, for example a Yashicamat, and end up with a well made camera, with amazing lenses and look at some quality photographs taken with a quality camera.
Lomo? That can go where the sun don't shine.
Dave
Yup, I can see Susan Burnstine wastes a lot of film with her crap cameras. :o/
Quote: and end up with a well made camera, with amazing lenses
Well made doesn't mean used well.
To cats 123 (OP) - yes, they are expensive. A lot of users agree that they are expensive when you don't have one but worth every penny when you do.
.
Buying a Lomo won't get you a Burnstine portfolio.
If you do have the ability, I don't think you need a Lomo to achieve the style.
The problem some of us have with Lomo is the philosophy behind it - often people extol them as being cheap and basic, when actually we know we can get basic cameras really cheaply, and Lomo are actually expensive for what they are. And then often people assume the rubbish photos they've produced are artistic because they're Lomo.
So you get a knee jerk reaction - those of us who really do use low cost basic equipment are pretty fed up with hearing about Lomo.
That doesn't mean no-one does good work with them. But there seem to be an awful lot of people who think that if you buy overpriced junk you'll automatically get artistic photography.
I suppose if someone wanted a brand new smart looking basic camera in a nice box, its their money, their choice. Its really the pretence that its cheap thats annoying.
grumble grumble grumble grumble
btw Burnstine was worth a look, thanks for the link
I read further about Burnstine -
Quote: I created twenty-one hand-made film cameras and lenses
Quote: The cameras are primarily made out of plastic, vintage camera parts and random household objects and the single element lenses are molded out of plastic and rubber
Not Lomo then.
Quote: Yup, I can see Susan Burnstine wastes a lot of film with her crap cameras. :o/
and end up with a well made camera, with amazing lenses
Well made doesn't mean used well.
To cats 123 (OP) - yes, they are expensive. A lot of users agree that they are expensive when you don't have one but worth every penny when you do.
.
I'm not sure i understand what you mean by that. Are you inferring something? The Yashica was the classic wedding camera of the 70's even today a 2 1/4 medium format takes some beating. The yashica was well made and well used.
Dave
No, not personally inferring, it's a matter of people looking down on toy cameras and judging them against the likes of Yashicamat and Bronica.
The toy (I agree with keith selmes - lets not call it Lomo, please) camera is a tool that shouldn't be compared to any other type. It's like comparing an axe to a saw.
Quote: (with regards to Burnstine's work)
Not Lomo then
'Lomo' has become the fashionable name for Toy in the same way that Boots is used more than chemist, so you say tomato....
Yes, Toy cameras can be used for artsy photos, but also for regular out-and-about stuff, too. But all of you so far seem to be concerned with the crap that's curned out, the same kind of crap that can be churned out with any camera. You got to admit, it kinda seems like snobbery.
Quote: They can't be serious......Grin
There are easier ways of wasting perfectly good rolls of film......Smile
There fun to use ![]()
I have never looked down on cameras of any description. One of my favourite quotes is : There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.
I feel this particularly when some users of "better known" brands infer that in some way their equipment is better. My only question has only ever been "better than what?"
However, I look at the cheap cameras with stupid price tags, labeled "lomo" and think how stupid it is. Face it, so many of the are cheap and nasty.
I guess, having looked at your profile that your main interest could be labelled, and i don't like labels, as niche, in the mainstream view of things. I don't know, its not something that i have ever taken much interest in it myself.
Whatever floats folks' boats.
Dave
Quote: I guess, having looked at your profile that your main interest could be labelled, and i don't like labels, as niche, in the mainstream view of things. I don't know, its not something that i have ever taken much interest in it myself
Who me ? ![]()
Quote: I guess, having looked at your profile that your main interest could be labelled, and i don't like labels, as niche, in the mainstream view of things. I don't know, its not something that i have ever taken much interest in it myself
Who me ? ![]()
No, not you ![]()
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.

















