Film and Lomography

Published on 19. 8. 2010 at 11:34 am

This is an abridged version of an article written by Bryan Appleyard that was published in The Sunday Times on 18 July 2010.

Many thanks to Bryan for allowing us to publish extracts.

To read the full article, click here


Film and Lomography

Satan was the worst photographer in Hell.

It was an embarrassment so, one day, he told Beelzebub, his go-to guy, to see if he could come up with something to fix his holiday snaps. Beelzebub went to California and returned waving a small box.

‘This is it!’ he cried, “it’s destroyed the art of photography on earth. Now you can do what you like with your pictures!”

It worked. Satan’s snaps glowed.

The box became known throughout Hell as Satan’s Snap Fixer. Back on earth they continued to call it Photoshop.

For all but a few purists, nutters, diehards, freaks and me, film photography collapsed. Last year Kodak announced it was stopping production of Kodachrome, the only film celebrated by a great singer – Paul Simon – with a great song – Kodachrome. Kodak still make films, including Tri-X, the black and white film with which Henri Cartier-Bresson made some of the most sublime images of the twentieth century. If they ever stop making that – well, Hell will not be hot enough for the Eastman Kodak Company.

All of that was bad enough, but there was also the matter of Satan’s Snap Fixer. In 1990 Photoshop 1.0 was released for the Apple Mac computer. Over the years, with ever increasing sophistication and complication, Photoshop has allowed pros and amateurs to improve, enhance and fake their pictures. Now it is safest to assume that everything has been Photoshopped and nothing, therefore, is true either to reality or to the art of photography.

But happily, years before, the seeds of the backlash had been sown. In 1984 the Soviet camera industry was doing what it did best, ripping off foreign designs. In that year it produced the Lomo LC-A, a compact 35mm film camera copied from a Japanese Cosina. In 1991 some guys in Austria got hold of an LC-A and liked it so much they became the sole worldwide distributor of the Lomo company of St Petersburg. Lomography had been born.

Now if you go into certain groovy clothes or design shops you are likely to see a display of brilliantly coloured plastic cameras with names like the Diana Multi Pinhole, the Holga 120 Pinhole, the Lomo Lubitel, the Lomography Spinner and, still in plain black, the Lomo LC-A. These are all film cameras. You have to buy 35mm or 120 – medium format – film, load the camera, take pictures without seeing them and then get them processed and printed.

Lomo Holga Pinhole Camera

The further twist is that, in strict professional terms, most of these are not very good cameras. They often leak light causing random streaks on prints, some have plastic lenses which cause bizarre and unpredictable effects, they offer minimal exposure control.

Some crazy lomographers make matters worse by cross-processing. This means you buy a slide film and process it as a negative film. Strange, luminous colours leap out of the final print.

And, finally, to make sure you really screw up your pictures, there are ten golden rules of Lomography which include ‘be fast’, ‘don’t think’ and ‘try the shot from the hip’. The whole point of lomography is to escape the curse of digital perfection.

“I’m falling in love with film again!” cries Natalie Wells, a professional photographer who admits digital made her feel guilty, “Every one of these cameras gives you a completely different picture.”

She is, she says, in pursuit of “something more extreme and chaotic” than digital.

We are sitting downstairs in the very groovy lomography shop in the unbelievably groovy Newburgh Street in London’s Soho. Upstairs, It is packed with people – mainly young but quite a few old – handling with wonder and delight the huge range of plastic cameras on display and the enticing little boxes of film.

The Lubitel is an amiable pastiche of that great camera the Rolleiflex and the Holgas look like the cheap, point and shoot cameras of the fifties. But there are also weirdos like the Oktomat which takes eight pictures at once and the Spinner which takes 360 degree panoramas.

The shop is run by Adam Scott, a psychology and sociology graduate turned professional photographer. It opened last year and business seems to be booming. The British are natural lomographers, we are, per head of population, the biggest market for these cameras.

“There seems to be some innate interest in photography in the UK,” muses Scott, “people are just really interested and curious.”

He’s right. The night before I had watched in wonder an episode of the TV show Midsomer Murders in which a war between digital and film photographers leads to violent deaths. It was just so English. The only flaw in the show was that the digital freaks were young and hip and the film nuts were old and fusty. Now all that is being reversed.

Back in 2004, Scott had an expensive digital Canon and started to notice that people were asking him to make his pictures look like film. This could be done with Satan’s Snap Fixer, but it did raise the awkward question, why bother? Why not just shoot film in the first place?

Lomography remains a small movement but things are happening. The new window display in Hermes in Bond Street consists of old film cameras and strips of 35mm film. Polaroid film is being made again and Fuji has produced Instax, a film that, like Polaroid, produces instant pictures and which can, with the aid of special camera backs, be used with lomographic equipment. Meanwhile, film makers like Ilford, Fuji and Kodak are seeing their first upturn in sales since the
I take pictures obsessively, getting my films developed by RP Photographic in Wandsworth and clutching the boxes when they come back with dumbstruck joy. These strips of celluloid are alive with the moment they were taken. Soon I shall pluck up the nerve to send them to RP for printing.

At Aperture, the secondhand dealer in London’s Bloomsbury, they told me they could not get enough film cameras to satisfy demand. One photographer in Norfolk told me, “Lomography is just the beginning. We haven’t even begun to explore the photographic image properly. Digital stalled the whole thing.”

“The future,” say the lomographers, “is analogue.”

Relevant links:

Bryan Appleyardwww.bryanappleyard.com

Lomowww.lomography.com

RP Photographicwww.rpphotographic.co.uk

Aperturewww.apertureuk.com

  1. You have a point about the consumerist nature of lomography.
    It haunts photography in general now.
    Like the idea that digital cameras become outdated and need replaced every five minutes.
    As if suddenly your Canon 5d can’t produce good images anymore because it’s 5 years old.

    Utter rubbish!

    I like how lomography celebrates spontaneity and the unpredictable elements of photography but it also celebrates being rubbish.
    Being a fad isn’t a bad thing in itself but if folk become bored and chuck their film cameras in a drawer, never to use them again, then it would be.
    If its becomes someone’s first steps into a lifetime of film photography then it’d be a good thing.

  2. I’d like to think that in a few years shooting on such overtly trendy cameras will be as big a faux pas as using certain filters on Photoshop. I guess that sounds pretty snobby, but I really dislike the blatantly shallow and consumerist nature of Lomo photography. It’s all about buying into a look, and really just being super-willing to typecast yourself and superficialize your photography.

    Also, crap cameras can be bought for a couple of quid each from charity shops. Though I suppose that doesn’t have the comforting hipster-approved cachet of the Lomo brand.

  3. Bobz…no it does´nt make any sense does it? Well maybe it does afterall – at least to me.
    I have thought a lot about it – why do I like overexposed, underexposed, grainy, blurred, soft, weird coloured photographs?
    The nearest I can come an explanation is that it is the as far as you can get from the smooth, perfect exposed, grainless digital images I dislike so much. For me it´s some kind of childish reaction against what I don´t like about digital. I think it´s in place to mention here that I shoot both digital and film.
    Another thing about Lomo and analog overall is, that it holds something “organic” to it that digital lacks. An anlog image, no matter how sharp and how fine grained, holds a certain softness to it that I like very much.
    It´s simply more pleasing to look at than a digital image. I have thought about that it might be because each coloured grain in an analog photograph is of different size and shape. In a digital photograph each pixel is precisely the same size and shape. And even thou it´s on a scale where the eye can´t separate the details it might influence the overall appearance of the photograph.

    What I like specific about Lomo is the fact that the outcome of the photographs is´nt given in advance. There are many unknown factors that influence the photographs, and that makes it exiting.

    One final thought: A digital sensor where each pixel was of slightly different size and different shape, and NOT arranged in vertical and horizontal lines would be nice. And morrié would not be a problem, either would straight lines that was slightly more or less than vertical or horizontal.

  4. I have to admit that when I first became interested in photography I bought a Fed 2, graduated to medium format via a Lubital 2, with which I had several successes in local camera club “Print Battles” and now, after owning many film cameras (32 at my last count), at the age of 72 have abandoned digital and returned to my old love, film (encouraged by finding that I’m not alone, after all.)
    PS. Does anyone know from where I can purchase a leather ever-ready case for my two Zorki ‘C’s

  5. I need help here, could someone explain the attraction, maybe hysteria about Lomo cameras ? :-o

  6. That’s pretty funny.

    Some of the best images in photography have had extensive dark room/printing work done on them.

    Split-mask printing is equivalent to masking in Photoshop nd expanding levels for each masked area individually – or also achievable to a similar level by use of HDR toning.

    Digital images still need finishing, just like film.