Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Chrissie_Lay, May 10, 2016.
Do you enjoy 'Lo'Fi photography? Cast your vote today
I get all the 'lo-fi' images I can stand out of what I've got without buying special kit to do it...
I can be quite happy with "low-fi" results, as from a box camera, LensBaby, Subjecktiv, etc., but what I can't stand is unreliable, fragile, overpriced cameras. Holgas aren't "toy" cameras: they're just rubbish cameras, not even as good as the Dianas that preceded them. My favourite cheapo cameras are Lubitels: I even have one that I grafted a Polaroid back onto.
THIS is a toy camera...
Nikons are low-fi according to Canon users and vice-versa.
Shot using a Lensbaby, Loreo lens-in-a-cap (the PC version) and a Holga SLR lens today on a paid conference shoot - the brief asked for some arty shots.
No. I am a Nikon FX and DX user and consider Canon, Pentax and most of the four thirds and 1 inch brigade also to some extent being Hi Fi photography exponents. Even some of the one over two thirds inch sensor cameras are at least half decent at web size. Lo Fi photography is definitely something that should have been left behind in the late nineteenth century.
It seems to me that if you want LO-FI you really can't beat the bottom of the proverbial bottle.
OK, so where is the poll?
From some offline comments, I finally noticed the dark-blue-among-black word "vote". I suppose the intent is to get the fewest votes possible in order to get more 'wild' results .
Seriously: couldn't "you" make it easier to vote?
Yes, I love lo-fi and shoot it a lot, both on film (Holga, Holga WPC, Box Brownie, Zero 45) and digitally with my Fujian CCTV lens.
Lacock Abbey grounds by Zou san, on Flickr
Loch Ainort, Skye by Zou san, on Flickr
AP Relic Challenge - National Monument (again...) by Zou san, on Flickr
Tjuvholmen, Oslo by Zou san, on Flickr
On the Cusp of Spring by Zou san, on Flickr
No. If all else fails I sometimes end up with it but don't think I've set out for it.
These beardy fellows parading about with low quality cameras designed to give poor results which they can then call 'art' make my skin crawl. With beards up to their eyeballs and flannel shirts they're supposed to look like lumberjacks, but most of them couldn't change a tyre - let alone fell a might redwood, deep in the forests of British Columbia.
They should get a shave and buy themselves a decent camera - or even a Canon.
This comment is sponsored by Gillette - the best shave a man can get.
First of all define what is meant by 'lo-fi'! How low is it? If Praktica SLRs and slide film are 'low' then I do 'lo-fi'.......and if other people consider the results to be 'ART' then I am not going to complain!
And no, I most definitely have neither a beard nor do I wear lumberjack shirts!!
Sorry Lynn, no offence meant - my comment was made with my tongue firmly in my cheek.
Wouldn't help, most 'decent cameras' have a built-in 'toy-camera' digital filter...
Well, my G5 and K-S1 do.
None of my Leicas has such a thing, and nor (as far as I know) does my Nikon Df. I've always thought they were quite decent cameras.
Yes, I know you said "most" but even then I'd be surprised if it were 50%.
Well, I've had a beard for most of the last 46 years, but I don't think I've had a lumberjack shirt since I was 9.
Never mind felling redwoods: even 15-20 foot pines can be more difficult than they look.
True. But to be fair neither of those are run-of-the-mill cameras
Leicas are, well, Leicas () and the Df was designed for people who want a camera with sensible shutter/aperture controls (ie not hidden in a menu somewhere). Doesn't even have video, iirc. If it weren't for it's weight, it would be on my list of things to get in the event of my lottery ticket coming up a good 'un!
Mind, if we're not careful, we could end up with a long, tedious and possibly heated debate on what makes a camera 'decent'. Sensor size/resolution? Ability to save in RAW? Built-in software? Manufacturer?
Shaped explosive charge? Not sure how legal they are in your neck of the woods, though.
Oi, tongue in cheek or not, you've missed the point... Different people have different tastes. For me, the pictures I posted above have *better* image quality than could have been achieved with a top end DSLR - because they achieved the look I wanted. Arty? Not really, just what I wanted in those circumstances. I'll use a different camera/lens when what I want requires it.
And I won't be shaving my beard off any time soon!
Funnily enough, felling trees of any size is a job which requires the right tools and preparation, a bit like deciding when to use lo-fi or not.
No, I haven't missed the point - I avoided the point entirely. To address the poll question, yes, I do enjoy digging out old film cameras with less-than-perfect lenses and seeing what the results look like and, yes, sometimes and for some subjects I can find those results preferable to those achieved by a top-end DSLR. As you say, you've used the equipment necessary to achieve the look you wanted and that is right and proper.
In avoiding the point entirely I tackled the question from the opposite direction, initially with humourous intent (and I certainly crashed and burned with that idea), but since you've decided to pull me up on what I've said I'll expand on what I was getting at a little further. What would be improper (albeit in my opinion only) would be for you to only ever use a 1960s Diana - not because this camera provides the result you're looking for every time, but because the subculture that you identify with says that this is the sort of camera you should use.
That said, it does me no harm if a bunch of beardy-weirdies want to click away with their Holgas and print the results on their home-made hemp pulp double-weight photographic paper with a natural yoghurt emulsion and enthuse over the blurry results as their black-framed, over-sized spectacles reflect the admiring faces of their friends and the music of a yet-unsigned 'discovery' band plays from a 1962 Dansette Popular in the background. To each their own.
Finally, to conclude, I also have a beard. My beard, however, is not of the 'weird' variety. It is a golden blond colour and owes more to George Armstrong Custer than the current monstrosities that owe their lineage to Giant Haystacks. As long as Rochdale Council refrains from settling Lakota, Cheyanne or Arapaho immigrants into the town, then the beard will endure.
Separate names with a comma.