[roto]

I want to know more about it. Besides Googling it...which I've done...why is it so special? What are the benefits (if any) over a digital camera? Are the photos better? Is that a matter of preference? Why is it so popular? Etc. etc.

Lomography @ Wikipedia has some good points, and this seems like a good "starter summary"...:

Similar to Eastman Kodak's concept of the "Kodak moment," the Lomography motto of "don't think, just shoot" presumes spontaneity, close-ups, and ubiquity, while deemphasizing formal technique (however to take a good 'from the hip' shot does take skill). Typical lomography cameras are deliberately low-fidelity and inexpensively constructed. Some cameras make use of multiple lenses and rainbow-colored flashes, or exhibit extreme optical distortions and even light leaks.

...but I'd still like to hear from some of you Lomo-ers out there on the points above and more that may not be covered by the Wikipedia article and Google results.

[iblastoff]

well..i used to be into 'lomography' when i was like 18 or something. the whole idea seemed like a fun, and free-form alternative to 'serious' photography while still being respectfully passionate for it.

grew up and figured out they were basically selling overpriced toys behind the guise of an overly welcoming community with no standards.

[BatteryLow]

I love overwhelming communities with no standards! Yea, the cameras are being sold for a lot more than they should be worth, but that's because of the whole trend of 'lomography'. Same reason vintage shops can get away with selling old used clothes for similar prices to Nordstroms.

This is actually the first I've heard about lomography, so I looked it up and read about it, then priced out some LOMO LC-A cameras on eBay. I really like the concept and even the 10 rules of lomography on the wikipedia site.

This whole photographic style seems to be right up my alley - no rules, do it for fun, and any mistakes or accidents can lead to very creative alternatives.

[wakabayashi]

"why i don't like lomography"
a good read: hxxp://cameras.alfredklomp.com/lomography/

[caleb condit]

I guess the idea of "lomography" is pretty silly. The idea of experimentation is essential to photography and using a more lofi camera is nice, but I'd prefer to find old wierd cameras at second hand stores for 20 bucks vs paying $150 for the same thing. It should be taken for what it is, marketing a photographic style. I mean really, buy whatever camera you like and do whatever you like with it. Why should you have to shoot a certain style just because of the camera you have? I think its more interesting to contrast a "crappy" camera with really refined work. OR what about adapting old lenses to a canon 5d? Check out fredmiranda.com and the alternative digital section.

[granprix]

in our country, it's beginning to be a trend again. i don't know why people love lomography though

[Limbo]

I love it. Love cameras, love cross processing and love some of the colour and charm you get from a roll. Same sense of adventure as a Polaroid.

The method is just that, a method.

Can't really be compared to the art of photography - bit like comparing oli paint and ponitillism.

Also like that it's helping to keep film alive.

[yourfreelance]

i love lomo

[Andy]

you don't have to buy an expensive camera to try lomography, my xa2 cost £15. i like lomography because there's minimal fiddling around with focus settings and light meters, it seems more natural.

[Pencil Rebel]

Try search Holga on flicker (about £25 from china) - pretty cool.

[steveb]

But the Holga is a completely different type of camera from the Lomo. Both cheap, and both developed in the old USSR.
I have a Lomo LC-A, bought from the Lomography site soon after the fad began. I like the way the shutter automatically stays open long enough to expose the film properly, although that can cause serious blurring unless the camera is held very steady. The darkened corners make Lomo pix fairly distinctive. I don't have a problem with that but it means that the Lomo isn't suitable for "serious" photography.
After I bought a Canon Ixus in 2004, I haven't used my Lomo at all.

[Andy]

they both produce the 'lomo effect', you don't need to get an LC-A for that.

[JonoMarshall]

You don't need a camera for the 'lomo effect'...

Photoshop Tutorials - Lomography

Lomography = meh.

[steveb]

Those examples are a bit extreme! Lomo's nowhere near as bad at vignetting as that!

[Paddy]

What's the cheapest 35mm 'lomo' camera I can get my hands on?

I was thinking of buying a Lomo Smena 35mm but it's £130 from the lomography.com shop once you add a flash and some film. I might still go for it though, since it takes such lovely pictures.

[brooks]

well revived paddy, I'm after a lomo camera too but budget can't stretch past £100, I'd love one of the dead old soviet looking ones but nah. Any advice given would be nice.

[Andy]

olympus xa's are about £35, xa2's are cheaper. you can get hold of a holga for about £40

[Paddy]

Unfortunately Holgas aren't 35mm. And those Olympus beasts are hideous looking.

I like the Smena because it looks so good, and it's 35mm. I think I'm just gonna have to bite the bullet and pay the £55 for it.

I have to say though that the price of 35mm slide film on Lomography.com seems a bit outrageous. Is it that expensive everywhere.

[Paddy]

Can I just point out that this is the greatest camera ever designed.

Multicoloured Holga

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Paddy

And those Olympus beasts are hideous looking.

It's the photographs you want to look good, not the camera. Do one.