Talk:Lomography

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Is Lomography something other than a marketing scam? (hint: no)

message: 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)
thread_title: Those cheaper alternatives

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   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)
thread_title:  Poor intro 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, really.  Snotty.  Prolix.  Interesting, worthwhile, and can be improved. Midgley 01:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro now seems really slanted 

message: 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 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)
thread_title:  Keeping the article objective 

message: 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)
thread_title: Link to Klomp's essay

message: 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)
replies: text: It's a silly hipster trend, nothing more.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.166.8 (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that explained it much better than the article. Muad (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is lomography an art or just a trend? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  BBC Documentary 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oh dear 

message: 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)
thread_title: nothing more than a bunch of smart guys

message: 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)
thread_title: Lomographer's pages

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed Changes and/or Additions 

message: I cleaned up some vandalism in the shape of Chinese text in parenthesis that read "scam" just next to "Lomography" in the fist paragraph.
Anyway, this article really needs to be severely purged.
I think, ladies and gents, that Wikipedia deserves better than this. For sure this article needs a clean-up and and a complete change in scope, as it seems entirely written from a fanboy point of view, if not from a COMPANY point of view, I fear.
Most information just echoes corporate lore without references to people. In the tale of the Austrian students, for example: who were they? What kind of relationship do they have to Lomography AG?
I also think that the article lacks a decent explanation on where this name, "Lomography", did come from and on who created this brand.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binomistar-g (talk • contribs) 17:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: This article, my dear people, is a complete shame