I’ve been tempted to take the plunge in real film Lomography for a while. It looks a lot of fun, the online community is pretty active and the Lomo cameras themselves are just so quirky. Plus, by getting involved and putting the money in, I’d be helping to preserve a valuable industry. Film is worth saving, isn’t it? Lots of people clearly think so, and I side with them. Yet, I have kept my Great British Pounds firmly in my pocket. I’d still want the content on my computer, although I’m sure I’d find plenty of stuff to do with the paper photos.
One of the main reasons I’ve not taken the plunge into film Lomography is because I can do the same sort of thing with my digital camera and filters in Photoshop or presets in Lightroom, without spending a ton of cash on a new camera, film and processing. As demonstrated in the photo above, as do most of the photos in my growing London Christmas 2012 set. Most of my recent Wembley tour photos used presets, which I think worked quite well.
I’m also rather tempted to splash the money on a Lo Fi lens for my Olympus E-PL1 (which still gets used, despite my Fuji purchase) to produce some creative photos. You can watch a review of the lens on YouTube by clicking here. But I guess, even with all the digital trickery, it’s still just not the same as a film camera. You have to think about every shot you take with film – you’re paying for it.
There’s no manipulating the results after the fact – unless you get them added to a CD. And there’s just a sense of pleasure in doing something the old fashioned way. I bet in a few years time, a lot of Kindle users will pick up a book and realised they missed their old paper friend. There’s an interesting BBC documentary on YouTube about Lomography. And the video review of a camera below. But the question is….should I or shouldn’t I?