File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Can anyone tell me why lomo "photography" is attractive? I don't see anything remarkable about it. Seems like kind of a waste of time and or film.
>> Meese !iZn5BCIpug
I think this is a troll.
>> Anonymous
because the people involved with lomo act nothing like the people on /p/

/thread
>> Anonymous
It's got novelty. That's about it.
>> Anonymous
There is no accounting for taste. /s/ has fat, thin, pale, muscular, famous, old, and young women and fans for each.

I like razzzorrrr sharp focus. Next guy likes saturation, 3rd guy likes marijuana haze. Our bodies are different, including our brains.
>> Anonymous
I understand people having different tastes but if this stuff wasn't in style and someone printed one of these snapshots in a magazine no one would find that acceptable.

I think this is the ultimate form of buying a camera to make you a "better" photographer because this "effect" is generated from the lousy camera.

Maybe people are just so bad at photography they decide the best way to mask that is to be terrible on purpose. Not that I'm particularly good but I try not to make crap on purpose.
>> Anonymous
I like the effect, but it's certainly overdone.
>> okto
It's fun. Sometimes it's a blast to forget about gear or even camera controls and just focus on the image.
Especially if you don't pay those fuckers at the lomographic society $40 for an $8 camera.
>> Anonymous
>>197738

+1, I picked up a Holga for $10. They're fun as shit, and they can produce nice pictures, like any other camera. They're just fun. Plus, you can mod them if you're bored, and that's fun too.
>> Anonymous
>>197738
Couldn't that be achieved with a an older, automatic rangefinder? I have a Minolta Hi-Matic F that all you do is focus and it takes great pictures. Or just use the hyperfocus scale on your exsisting camera?