Rubbish

Written on 4:04 PM by c meridian

Rubbish, originally uploaded by write2inbox.

"Rubbish"

Ever since I've been dabbling with Lomo cameras, I've read so much in the
forums about how lomographers think that their photos are much better than
digital pictures. That digital cameras are boring and worthless in the face
of their LC-A or whatever nots. I'm just wondering how much do these happy
snappy lomographers actually know about photography in the first place for
them to pass judgements about both technologies, new and old.

Let's get this clear first, Lomographic photographs are interesting and
generates lots of quirky moody photos. They give the average person a slice
of the happiness one would find when he/she wins a lottery. In fact, lomo
photos are lotteries. You'll never know what you are going to get because of
the extremely low-tech camera system (almost toy-like even) flawed optics
that causes vignetting, fixed focus elements... and in some lomo cameras,
light leaks that creates photos in professional photography circle would
have been deemed damaged or unusable. There are patches of red or accidental
exposure on the film that is not within the control of the photographer.

In the spirit of lomography, one shoots without thinking (too much) and then
crosses his or her fingers that the cross-processing of slide films will
result in an explosion of wacky colors that captures an artistic "mood".
Before I get flaming comments from Lomo-fans, I must say that the results
could possibly be beautiful and imaginative. But it qualifies as art as much as a toddler's
doodle is a masterpiece. There is so much of an element of luck involved
that one cannot actually give the photographer more credit than to say "oh,
you pressed the shutter button well". Ok, you get a few credits for
composition and finding a remotely interesting subject... but the rest of
the art is actually in the qualities of the slide film, cross processing
wonders and plenty of luck. Don't agree? C'mon, any form of photography that
doesn't involve looking through a viewfinder is a result of a big dose of
chance.

If I'm a pilot and without much input on the controls, miraculously landed a
plane... don't you think I don't deserve all the credit for saving all the
lives? If I am a musician and I happen to slam the piano, and it made an
interesting "artistic" sound which I sample into my hit single.. am I a
talented singer? Maybe more of a one hit wonder... but talented or gifted?
No.

The real experts are those pilots who land the planes and actually know what
they are doing. Those musicians who know what tune turns people on and
resonates well in people's minds and ears. Artists who know painting
techniques and possess an original style they can replicate again and again
in different artworks. A fashion designer who makes collections of clothes
based on dressmaking skills, vision of beauty and understanding of textile.
Same to photographers... it is nice to chance upon artistic and queer
results from a "point-and-shoot" Lomo camera but please don't consider this
more artistic than people who shoot digital or film SLR.

Since young, my dad's interest in photography has cultivated a sense of
curiosity in me. I've since inherited his old cameras and have done some
pretty wacky film SLR photography of my own in college. I used the Nikon
FE2, Nikon FA and Canon EOS 1000. I have shown an exhibition
in the presence of the National Unity and Social Development Minister
during the 2001 Celebrate Life campaign it in aid of the Malaysian
Humanitarian Foundation (MHf).

I have some understanding of the concept of aperture, shutter speed, film
ASA, depth of field, rule of thirds and lighting. I don't claim to be an
expert and besides, I haven't touched the manual SLR in some time, so I am
pretty rusty at it.

But I seriously do not see why digital photography and lomography (or other
types of film photography) can't co-exist together and be considered
superior in their own ways. Lomography is best considered a hobby/happy
snappy activity. You really can't take it beyond shooting pavements, pets,
old junk and the occasional portraits. Digital photography (those that are
beyond the IXUS and Cybershot point-and-shoots) require skill to harness its
true capability. Those prosumer or more advanced digital cameras give the
photographer the chance to tweak white balances, color warmth, noise levels
and ASA levels on the fly. Heck you can even focus properly... unlike the
Lomo LC-A. Where I am left taking only 4 types of photos... 0.8m, 1.5m, 3m
or scenery shots (infinity focus).

Haven't lomographers seen incredible photos taken on digital cameras? Or
35mm SLR cameras, where the photographers actually understand the lighting
so well that they adjusted to the desired aperture, shutter speed and lens
properties that they caught an award winning photo, based on skill. Yes, of
course, Mike Yamashita would still need luck to get that photo of Vietnamese
warzone and survive it. As does Steven Meisel would need luck to capture a
portrait of Madonna in a priceless expression. But all these photographers
have the knowledge, skill, talent, experience and artful eye that enables
them to control every possible element of photography while waiting for the
"picture perfect moment" to arrive.

Even if a photo is digitally tweaked, it is still art. Because the artist
behind the computer would still need the eye for aesthetics and talent
beyond cognitive linearity to perfect a "bad photo". You don't just press
one button and the computer takes care of the cropping, composition,
contrast and etc etc... It's no luck. It's still a skill, an art. There is
no "lucky" filter in photoshop... or one button to surprise yourself with
unexpected colors and claims of pseudo-art... your passport to instant
artistic echelon. A great example would be the legendary David LaChapelle. The maestro whose works have brought pop art and tastes for commercial photography to a different galaxy. Nay. a different dimension. 

Think Pierre and Gilles, the two world renowned contemporary French artists with their ethereal surrealism and play on flamboyant style. You might have seen their recent work for Piaget watches commercial. The ad features an enchanted luminous floral décor, amidst a kaleidoscope of form and colour, sylph-like young ladies, ethereally backlit, emerge from the décor in a Klimt-like manner modelling a watch and jewellery.  Artists like Pierre and Gilles have the precedence over their work and show that good art is not accidental. 

Digital cameras are great in a way that it is cheaper to shoot with... with
endless possibilities, provides instant review and can be as artistic as you
want it to be. You just have to study the manual, buy the right camera/lens
and know a bit of photoshop.

Hey and you know what, everyone can still do lomography... as you can see
that I'm hooked on it too... but please, respect other forms of photography.
We can all co-exist. Just because your photos come out wacky... doesn't mean
you're more artistic than everyone else. If anything, I would give a lot of
credit to the film and the person cross processing your film. Shooting with
Lomo is fun... but I wouldn't consider myself a good photographer, if Lomo
is all I do. It's too much of a hobbyist culture. It's the very essence of
convenience, accessibility to the so-called art, shooting without thinking
and fluke factor... that goes against the essence of photography. Lomo
photos are still photography... and appreciated for its eccentricities, but
it's hardly serious art.

And if I ever again hear someone say... "Lomography is better than digital
photography"... I might just whip out my 4R photo album and start
paper-cutting the person's flesh... and then flash his eyes with a Canon
Speedlite flash. It's the most predictably self-absorbed and obtuse thing
that a photographic celebutard can say.

One last thing... think of the biggest day of your life. Then imagine if you
had one device to capture that beautiful memory for ever... so that one day
your grandson or 80 year old spouse can reminisce of the once-in-a-lifetime
moment.... what would it be? A lomo or a digital camera?

As much as you shouldn't take lomography seriously (since there are no rules
to lomography). Those who claim that digital photography "sucks", can't be
serious.

Note: I found this profound article to shed similar light on the "Lomography
vs Art" topic.  http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/lomography/