Home > observations and ramblings > flogging a dead horse, perhaps

flogging a dead horse, perhaps

The LOMO LC-A = what, RM900?

The Olympus XA = RM300-ish. No more than RM400, usually, for a perfectly working example.

The XA has a 35mm f/2.8, very good quality lens. Quality build: plastic, but solid. It works well and will continue to work unless you take a hammer to it.

The LC-A? Pfft.

Sure, you can say the LC-A is fun and it’s not about high-quality optics, but tell me, from the following two situations, which seems far more fun?

Paying nearly RM1k for a camera that’s about as special as a hot day, more overpriced than every original Napalm Death CD you’ll ever find here in malaysia, built about as well as a Lada, is used by more cocks than BMWs are driven by and is basically just a cheap, mass-produced russian knockoff that is now being sold at obscene prices by an assjerk society—that every teenager seems to like—which seems to promote the tenet of “good photography second, cross-processing and light leaks and bad optics first!”


Paying around RM300 for a camera that’s built well, has a quality lens and, you know, will actually WORK?

Sure, you could say that you want the 2 minute shutter speed, or even the double exposure button, but honestly, 2 minute exposures aren’t “Lomo,” are they? That seems to defeat the entire purpose of the rules that they have, doesn’t it?

I could rip out the light seals from my XA, slap in some slide film, take a few bad shots and get the film cross processed and I’d get very Lomo-esque photos. But since it’s not taken with a camera that the LOMO Society endorses, I’ll never get in any of their magazines! Even if my photos are better! Of course, I would never want to get a photo in any of their magazines anyway.

And for those of you trying to come up with an argument for “lomography” via the lo-fi aesthetic: sure, “lomography” places more emphasis on the lo-fi, but you do not pay hi-fi prices for lo-fi equipment. And even Lou Barlow or Owen Ashworth, lo-fi as they are/were, still wrote/write bloody good songs. Underneath all the lo-fi grit, all the tape hiss and occasional distortion, you can hear that their music is, undeniably, quite good. Sadly, I can’t say the same for a lot of the “lomography” I see: underneath all the light leaks and cross processing there’s a photo that would be consigned to the “crap” bin by any other standards aside from those of the LOMO Society.

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

%d bloggers like this: