I started a lofi photo group, please come along if you're interested in that

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by casioculture@gmail.com, Apr 2, 2006.

  1. Guest

    It's here

    http://groups.google.co.uk/group/lofiphoto

    If you enjoy trying to take high art pictures with low end cameras,
    then please come along and join the group. I'm not expecting many to be
    interested in this, after all this is a niche interest, but I'm
    expecting that those who are will be an interesting few.
    , Apr 2, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    wrote:

    > It's here
    >
    > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/lofiphoto
    >
    > If you enjoy trying to take high art pictures with low end cameras,
    > then please come along and join the group. I'm not expecting many to be
    > interested in this, after all this is a niche interest, but I'm
    > expecting that those who are will be an interesting few.


    By the way, the email for the newsgroup is lofiphoto aaaaatttt gmail
    dot com
    , Apr 2, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul Furman Guest

    Re: I started a lofi photo group, please come along if you're interestedin that

    wrote:

    > It's here
    >
    > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/lofiphoto
    >
    > If you enjoy trying to take high art pictures with low end cameras,
    > then please come along and join the group. I'm not expecting many to be
    > interested in this, after all this is a niche interest, but I'm
    > expecting that those who are will be an interesting few.


    Do you have a gallery?
    Here's my contribution:
    http://www.edgehill.net/P4010167-gamma-sm.jpg
    -grossly underexposed old P&S digital
    Paul Furman, Apr 2, 2006
    #3
  4. Scott W Guest

    wrote:
    > It's here
    >
    > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/lofiphoto
    >
    > If you enjoy trying to take high art pictures with low end cameras,
    > then please come along and join the group. I'm not expecting many to be
    > interested in this, after all this is a niche interest, but I'm
    > expecting that those who are will be an interesting few.


    I think a lot will be interested.
    I assume you know about these people
    http://shop.lomography.com/holga/
    Now a days you are going to have a lot of people seeing how far they
    can go with cell phone cameas.

    Scott
    Scott W, Apr 2, 2006
    #4
  5. Paul Furman Guest

    Re: I started a lofi photo group, please come along if you're interestedin that

    Scott W wrote:

    > wrote:
    >
    >>It's here
    >>
    >>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/lofiphoto
    >>
    >>If you enjoy trying to take high art pictures with low end cameras,
    >>then please come along and join the group. I'm not expecting many to be
    >>interested in this, after all this is a niche interest, but I'm
    >>expecting that those who are will be an interesting few.

    >
    >
    > I think a lot will be interested.
    > I assume you know about these people
    > http://shop.lomography.com/holga/


    How the heck was this done?
    http://shop.lomography.com/holga/gallery/img_15.jpg
    must be a color filter with a hole in the middle plus a really good eye
    for finding unusual lighting.

    > Now a days you are going to have a lot of people seeing how far they
    > can go with cell phone cameas.
    Paul Furman, Apr 3, 2006
    #5
  6. Guest

    Scott W wrote:

    > wrote:
    > > It's here
    > >
    > > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/lofiphoto
    > >
    > > If you enjoy trying to take high art pictures with low end cameras,
    > > then please come along and join the group. I'm not expecting many to be
    > > interested in this, after all this is a niche interest, but I'm
    > > expecting that those who are will be an interesting few.

    >
    > I think a lot will be interested.
    > I assume you know about these people
    > http://shop.lomography.com/holga/
    > Now a days you are going to have a lot of people seeing how far they
    > can go with cell phone cameas.
    >
    > Scott


    Everyone is welcome with whatever their definition of low end is.
    Personally, I don't like "lomography", and I wouldn't define it as low
    end for me. My personal interest is along the lines of these

    http://community.webshots.com/photo/2301586360055416418SEjXdb
    http://community.webshots.com/photo/549138855/2991610130055416418SnDWoj

    I personally find these ideal cameras for me at this time. Fixed focus,
    perhaps fixed exposure, big viewfinder which is good for composition,
    AA batteries with one of them being a manual drive camera with a
    thumbwheel, hence AA batteries only used for the flash, which has a
    manual switch on both, not that I intend to use the flash.

    Each has a price of ~£10, and within their price range or even above,
    they are, in my opinion, the best choices. Simple, practical,
    predictable and transparent.

    They don't give you much control, which is good for this purpose of
    eliminating distractions, and they don't try to control you, which is
    even better. No worries about what the AF/AE is reacting to; very
    predictable being fixed-focus and fixed-exposure. What a delight.

    They're also intended to serve a basic purpose, a very basic one, not
    make a fashion statement.

    With a lomo I would still feel that the camera is standing in the way
    and being a distraction, given its fad. I'd still feel that it is about
    the camera itself, and not the practice.
    , Apr 3, 2006
    #6
  7. Desdinova Guest

    lobster telephone

    wrote:

    > Everyone is welcome with whatever their definition of low end is.
    > Personally, I don't like "lomography", and I wouldn't define it as low
    > end for me. My personal interest is along the lines of these



    If you don't like it because its popular, you can say so.
    I'm not a fan because you could get an agfa isolette for about the same
    price or just a little more and it'd be a more usable camera.

    Take care,
    Des
    Desdinova, Apr 3, 2006
    #7
  8. Guest

    Re: lobster telephone

    Desdinova wrote:

    > wrote:
    >
    > > Everyone is welcome with whatever their definition of low end is.
    > > Personally, I don't like "lomography", and I wouldn't define it as low
    > > end for me. My personal interest is along the lines of these

    >
    >
    > If you don't like it because its popular, you can say so.
    > I'm not a fan because you could get an agfa isolette for about the same
    > price or just a little more and it'd be a more usable camera.
    >
    > Take care,
    > Des


    Lobster telephone? :)

    Okay. The lomo.

    I don't like it for two reasons, one is being "popular", the other,
    above all, is technical.

    I don't like the lomo for the same reasons that I don't want to be seen
    walking around with white earbuds. Something makes me shy from that.
    Yes, big difference, unlike the lomo, the ipod, though popular, is a
    fine piece of design and engineering, but, aside from its popular "me
    too" curse, does it make sense to me? No. If i were given a choice
    between a free ipod or my current £7 or £12 mp3 player, which would I
    choose? Assuming I can't resell, I'd definitely choose my current
    cheapo. Why? It uses AAA batteries and SD cards. I listen to
    audiobooks, each audiobook is composed of ~ 20 hours, I can fit these
    on a 512mb card and even more on a 1gb one, and they deal with
    non-fiction topics, which means sometimes they require listening to a
    few times to understand well. Do I run out of capacity? No, but I run
    out of battery, and for that AAA are quite handy. I ran out of battery
    today, did I have to wait for an ipod to recharge? No, I took an AAA
    out of my pocket and put it in, and I was listening again within
    seconds. Do I have to worry about what will happen when the
    non-user-replaceable battery runs out in a year or whether the device
    will last 5 years? No. They use AAA and they're durable, for less than
    the price of an ipod I'd buy a few and they'd last me for a decade or
    more. Would I feel comfortable about owning more than one item, giving
    each a name label, and keeping a different sync profile on the computer
    for each name label with an expensive, time-limited ipod like I do with
    these http://i2.tinypic.com/sxglfc.jpg? No (I don't care what people
    think about this latter bit, it works well for me - owning more than
    one durable and flexible device is not the same as owning one larger
    capacity fragile and expensive one, and there's nothing sad about
    giving a device a name label if it helps organisation; good
    organisation is God). Do I prefer compact HD or solid state? Solid
    state. What colour are my earbuds? Black! How much do they cost?
    £0.99. Good enough? Excellent! Do I want white earbuds? God forbid! Do
    I need my mp3 to be seen? No, it's remains in pocket where I want it to
    be. Why would I want an ipod? No idea.

    Coming back to the lomo, do I want to buy an overpriced piece of crap
    and pretend to "be cool, spontaneous, and shoot from the hip"? No way.
    The complete opposite. I have a book here on my shelf, titled the
    Visual Dialogue, by Knobler. No where in it I see it advised to "be
    cool, spontaneous, and shoot from the hip", nor can I imagine learning
    anything useful from spending a significant period of time doing that.
    I can summarise the contents of Knobler's book, and a few other related
    books, in ~10 pages. I would think though that I can fill 10 years or
    so with practice aimed at mastering the contents of those 10 pages. I
    just want to move away from the distraction of equipment, to focusing
    on what really matters, and what mattered back in ancient times, as
    illustrated in the book, is still what matters these days, and it isn't
    the equipment.
    , Apr 3, 2006
    #8
  9. Guest

    Re: lobster telephone

    Desdinova wrote:

    > wrote:
    >
    > > Everyone is welcome with whatever their definition of low end is.
    > > Personally, I don't like "lomography", and I wouldn't define it as low
    > > end for me. My personal interest is along the lines of these

    >
    >
    > If you don't like it because its popular, you can say so.
    > I'm not a fan because you could get an agfa isolette for about the same
    > price or just a little more and it'd be a more usable camera.
    >
    > Take care,
    > Des


    I don't like white earbuds. :)
    , Apr 6, 2006
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Remi Hu
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    344
    Remi Hu
    Sep 24, 2004
  2. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    614
    =?Utf-8?B?SmFmZnNlcg==?=
    Aug 3, 2006
  3. Ditto21
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    423
    Ditto21
    Mar 14, 2006
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,029
    pcbutts1
    Dec 6, 2007
  5. Replies:
    18
    Views:
    550
    Bruce Sinclair
    Dec 1, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page