Stitched with Hugin
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Lots and Lots of Perfect, Beautiful, Boring Pictures
As I've said before, when something becomes cheap and easy to do 99% of it will be crap. So many people have access to high-resolution, auto-focus, auto-exposure, auto-bracketing, auto-sequencing, auto-orienting, auto-red-eye-reducing, auto-flash-programming, weather-proof, fool-proof cameras that's it's hard to take a bad picture. Add to that programs like PhotoShop that do automatic color correction, automatic contrast correction, automatic brightness correction, and allow various other manipulations and you have the potential for lots and lots of perfectly focused, perfectly oriented, perfectly lit, perfectly boring pictures.
I can't remember what I was looking up on Wikipedia, but somehow I stumbled across an entry for lomography. I thought, "What the heck is that?" So, I read the entry and followed the link to the "Lomographic Society International" web page where I read even more on the history of lomography. The net of it is that lomography is a style of photography that naturally arose out of the use of a somewhat quirky camera
As long as you follow those rules, you're taking a lomograph. It doesn't matter what type of camera you're using, although the ones that they sell under their own name brand have features that make the cameras particularly well-suited for taking lomographs. One feature, for instance, is a wide angle lens. The camera that started it all, the LOMO LC-A, has a fairly wide lens. That makes it easier to "4. Try the shot from the hip." In other words to take a picture without looking through the view finder. You are more likely to capture your subject with a wide angle lens if you're not using the view finder to aim. Most of their cameras have a fairly wide angle lens. In fact, their Fisheye cameras are the only 35mm cameras in the world that have a built-in super wide angle lens.
Many lomographers are also avid users of "toy cameras". Although lomographers and "toy camera" photographers are technically two distinct groups, there is much overlap. Many toy cameras lend themselves to lomographic techniques and yield "lomographic" results. The most "famous" toy camera is the Diana which originally sold for a few dollars or was even given away as a promotional item. The Diana uses 120 film which is still available. An original Diana (or any of its numerous clones), is very cheaply made and prone to light leaks.
So what is the "lomo" look? Generally the pictures will display vignetting (darkened corners) because of the "cheap" optics, distorted or overly saturated colors because of the cheap/expired/or "cross processed" film, an unusual perspective because they're spontaneous. Most lomographics don't look good at all. When I'm strictly following the 10 Golden Rules, out of an entire roll, I might get about 25% that are OK. Out of those, I might get 25% that are interesting. Out of all of those, I might get 25% that are surprisingly good. I don't usually follow all the rules because I don't get around much and I don't do a lot of street photography. I will often at least try to compose my shots, but I do use a combination of dead stock Russian cameras, new Lomographic Society International Cameras, and true "toy cameras" - that is cameras that were marketed as toys, and lomographic techniques to achieve results like the following:
Notice the darkened corners and another effect called optical vignetting where the corners are out of focus as well. This is an extremely wide angle shot exhibiting a relatively small amount of barrel distortion. The vignetting draws attention to the center of the picture. The extremely wide angle allowed me to get the entire structure in the picture. Although that's not always the goal, I think it worked here. The picture is too "contrasty" and the colors are unnatural - another "trademark" of lomographs. I took this picture with a toy camera I purchased on e-bay for ninety-nine cents plus shipping. I used 35mm film and got it processed at the cheapest lab in town. Is it perfect? No. It's distorted, out of focus, too contrasy, etc, but it's interesting. At least it's interesting to me, and that's what counts.
I can't remember what I was looking up on Wikipedia, but somehow I stumbled across an entry for lomography. I thought, "What the heck is that?" So, I read the entry and followed the link to the "Lomographic Society International" web page where I read even more on the history of lomography. The net of it is that lomography is a style of photography that naturally arose out of the use of a somewhat quirky camera
- Take your camera everywhere you go.
- Use it anytime, day and night.
- Lomography is not an interference in your life, but part of it.
- Try the shot from the hip.
- Approach the objects of your lomographic desire as closely as possible.
- Don't think (William Firebrace).
- Be fast.
- You don't have to know beforehand what you captured on film.
- Afterwards, either.
- Don't worry about any rules.
As long as you follow those rules, you're taking a lomograph. It doesn't matter what type of camera you're using, although the ones that they sell under their own name brand have features that make the cameras particularly well-suited for taking lomographs. One feature, for instance, is a wide angle lens. The camera that started it all, the LOMO LC-A, has a fairly wide lens. That makes it easier to "4. Try the shot from the hip." In other words to take a picture without looking through the view finder. You are more likely to capture your subject with a wide angle lens if you're not using the view finder to aim. Most of their cameras have a fairly wide angle lens. In fact, their Fisheye cameras are the only 35mm cameras in the world that have a built-in super wide angle lens.
Many lomographers are also avid users of "toy cameras". Although lomographers and "toy camera" photographers are technically two distinct groups, there is much overlap. Many toy cameras lend themselves to lomographic techniques and yield "lomographic" results. The most "famous" toy camera is the Diana which originally sold for a few dollars or was even given away as a promotional item. The Diana uses 120 film which is still available. An original Diana (or any of its numerous clones), is very cheaply made and prone to light leaks.
So what is the "lomo" look? Generally the pictures will display vignetting (darkened corners) because of the "cheap" optics, distorted or overly saturated colors because of the cheap/expired/or "cross processed" film, an unusual perspective because they're spontaneous. Most lomographics don't look good at all. When I'm strictly following the 10 Golden Rules, out of an entire roll, I might get about 25% that are OK. Out of those, I might get 25% that are interesting. Out of all of those, I might get 25% that are surprisingly good. I don't usually follow all the rules because I don't get around much and I don't do a lot of street photography. I will often at least try to compose my shots, but I do use a combination of dead stock Russian cameras, new Lomographic Society International Cameras, and true "toy cameras" - that is cameras that were marketed as toys, and lomographic techniques to achieve results like the following:
Notice the darkened corners and another effect called optical vignetting where the corners are out of focus as well. This is an extremely wide angle shot exhibiting a relatively small amount of barrel distortion. The vignetting draws attention to the center of the picture. The extremely wide angle allowed me to get the entire structure in the picture. Although that's not always the goal, I think it worked here. The picture is too "contrasty" and the colors are unnatural - another "trademark" of lomographs. I took this picture with a toy camera I purchased on e-bay for ninety-nine cents plus shipping. I used 35mm film and got it processed at the cheapest lab in town. Is it perfect? No. It's distorted, out of focus, too contrasy, etc, but it's interesting. At least it's interesting to me, and that's what counts.
Forward
This isn't my first, or only, blog. My first is actually an internal blog where I work that I use to keep track of my activities. I've resisted doing a world-wide blog because I really didn't think I have anything that interesting to say. I'm sure most people don't want to hear about my latest Hyperion or Lotus Notes programming exploits and that's what consumes a lot of my time.
I also think most blogs are boring and unoriginal. Only a small percentage of them provide any original content, especially when it comes to videos, pictures, and music. Often their only contribution to cyberspace is their purely subjective opinions about someone else's work that they have embedded into their blog. There are, of course, important exceptions, but like everything else that's cheap and easy to do 99% of it is crap.
I've decided to do a blog pertaining to my photographic experiments involving lomographic techniques and toy cameras. The results might still be crap, but at least it will be original crap.
I also think most blogs are boring and unoriginal. Only a small percentage of them provide any original content, especially when it comes to videos, pictures, and music. Often their only contribution to cyberspace is their purely subjective opinions about someone else's work that they have embedded into their blog. There are, of course, important exceptions, but like everything else that's cheap and easy to do 99% of it is crap.
I've decided to do a blog pertaining to my photographic experiments involving lomographic techniques and toy cameras. The results might still be crap, but at least it will be original crap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)