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?


8 thoughts on “Lomography

      • I agree re Polaroid, but I still have hopes for the company which has begun selling film packs for the cameras.

        After trying several image manipulation programs on computers, I can definitely say that the SX 70 process is far more intuitive and, thus, fun! With the SX 70 I never got lost in the technological “geekspeak” which so impacts me with today’s computer programs. And the slightly luminous, even a bit 3-dimensional, surface of the SX70 output is still unique. UNfortunately, Mexico is probably a long way off from receiving these film packs, which probably require refrigeration to ship safely. Ah well….


    • I don’t think there is any real technical reason why film should go on living from an image quality point of view. But they do still, by default, print to paper. That’s a selling point, if they can work the angles.


  1. Kim G says:

    Film is as essential to photography as wires are to telephony.


    Kim G
    Boston, MA
    Where we have a couple of 35mm film cameras kicking around that haven’t been used in at least 10 years. But we can’t bear to part with them either.


    • Kim G says:

      P.S. In Spanish, lomo is the word you use for the back (spine, not rear) of an animal, and it’s often seen on restaurant menus. When I first saw the title of your post, that was all I could think of. Photography seemed the farthest possible subject for this post. LOL


    • I had a couple of SLR’s that I picked up for chump change on eBay in the early/mid noughties. They sat around for a few years till I gave them away. I’d forgotten all about them till I read your comment. I suspect if you went to find your cameras and discovered they’d gone, you’d probably get over it pretty quick.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.