Gimmick or no gimmick?

[ryank]

My great friend loves to tell me how much of a gimmick the 'toy' cameras are, he says "Buying a camera just because its blurry and hit and miss focus is just a gimmick"

My thoughts are, why is it a gimmick to seek out this style? Is it not a gimmick to spend £1000s on hi-tech equipment that will produce 'sharp' photos.

I dont see the difference.

e.g. A lomo kiddy will buy a diana snapping anything that moves without a seconds thought and thinks it will be magically good because of the cool effects.

whereas the DSLR/gadget enthusiast will do the same think his pictures will be good too just because it is sharp



Just a thought!

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Well, producing a nice, sharp, clear photo isn't a "look," it's merely a baseline from which to be creative. The toy camera "look" can be very evocative, but it's getting to be a bit of a cliche, in my view. It's distinctive but easily imitated. Whereas if you can make technically good images, all you have to worry about is actually taking good pictures (ha!), and achieve a great variety of effects.

I certainly agree, though, that people spend way more money than they have to in order to achieve technical competence.

I have nothing against the Lomo stuff. I subscribe to light leaks in fact! But it's in grave danger of become mannered and dated.

 

[RayPA]

I used to think "yes, gimmicky," but I've seen some nice work and projects done with toy cameras and gear like LensBaby that was very effective. However, I think you have to be careful when using "gimmicks" because they are often cliches—one trick ponies, whose qualities are hard to overcome.


/

 

[retnull]

Nothing is a gimmick if you put your heart into it
(Anything is a gimmick if your heart is not in it)

 

[Ducky]

There are cameras called "toy cameras" such as Holga and Diana and other Lomo items, and then there are real toy cameras. I use a Tweety and a Taz from Warner Bros. and they take pretty sharp photos.
My toy cameras use 35mm and cost $10 new and $.99 at goodwill.

 

[ryank]

There are cameras called "toy cameras" such as Holga and Diana and other Lomo items, and then there are real toy cameras. I use a Tweety and a Taz from Warner Bros. and they take pretty sharp photos.
My toy cameras use 35mm and cost $10 new and $.99 at goodwill.

I had that camera when I was a child! I can remember not being able to get the back off!

 

[Colman]

My great friend loves to tell me how much of a gimmick the 'toy' cameras are, he says "Buying a camera just because its blurry and hit and miss focus is just a gimmick"

Well, for most people, it probably is. Which doesn't mean it's a bad thing. My wife is enthusiastic about one - I bought it as a Valentines present! - and I think a part of the enthusiasm is precisely that it is a gimmicky toy that gives you permission to experiment and play without the expectation that you're going to produce a "perfect" image. I don't expect it to be a camera she uses long-term but as a learning device.

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

The problem with toy camera pictures is that the focus (har har) of the photos is often the properties of the camera or film (e.g. light leaks, blurriness, cross-processed colours). I don't mind when those properties work together with the subject of the photo to make something interesting, but often it's just a cliche with no substance. The same could be said about bokeh, black and white or saturated colour, sharpness, etc.

 

[oftheherd]

One man's trash another man's treasure.

 

[iamzip]

Like anything else, it depends on the person using it.

 

[vdonovan]

I've posted elsewhere about the 2nd Annual Juried Plastic Camera show about to open at San Francisco's Rayko Photography Center. I helped to hang the show this year and was totally blown away by some of the work I saw. Yes many of the images have the "Holga look" but I was amazed at how, for many photographers in the show, that was only the starting point for intense creativity.

I am not a Holga user, nor am I going to become one. I came away from the show hoping that I can find that same level of creativity in myself, using my regular gear.

I agree with Ryank that any type of photography can become a gimmick. It's up to us to push photographic techniques and styles to achieve something truly new.

 

[Merkin]

If you want to avoid being gimmicky with a holga, superglue it to a tripod. superglue a nut on the side that will fit a cable release. Don't shoot color film for cross processing on penalty of becoming a laughingstock. Think about the type of subjects that lend themselves well to being shot with a low quality single meniscus plastic lens. Don't be afraid to leave it outside at night with the shutter open for a few hours. Basically, ignore all of the "rules of lomography," which are just a scam. Consider the tool for what it is, keep in mind the severe limitations of the tool, and separate yourself from the hype and the trendiness.

ETA: don't literally superglue it to the tripod. My point was just to avoid hipshooting it. Make yourself think before you trip the shutter on 1/12 of a 5 dollar roll of film. Compose, Compose, Compose.

 

[skeletron]

Consider the tool for what it is, keep in mind the severe limitations of the tool, and separate yourself from the hype and the trendiness.

Thank you. That's about how I put it when the subject comes up among photog friends, though not as concisely.
​

 

[pvdhaar]

Nothing is a gimmick if you put your heart into it
(Anything is a gimmick if your heart is not in it)

Fully agree..

The whole point about a toy camera is that you have to really work to get a really good picture. The limitations mean you have to think hard about what and how you're going to shoot something to get the best result. No gimmick at all indeed..

 

[Darkhorse]

Just the other day I was in Samys Camera because I wanted to try a roll of Ektar 100. There wasn't a big lineup at the film counter but two, count 'em, TWO separate people were buying these plastic cameras.

As far as I'm concerned these things are a potential gateway drug. I know it was for me. Last year I bought a Holga and played around with it and it was sort of my reintroduction to film. A little while later I bought a Yashica-Mat and then started to process my own film and so on. The same may be happening for others.

 

[Benjamin]

Nothing is a gimmick if you put your heart into it

Well put. This is the case to my mind anyway with all art and craft; fine or otherwise. Unfortunate for some, and to the great fortune of others.

Benjamin

 

[POINT OF VIEW]

There is a difference.

There is a difference.

The difference is I can use a M8 and create sharp photos or with software make a Holga look-alike plus inferred or any other gimmick photo including pin hole. With a gimmick camera you can only make a gimmick photo. Bill

 

[JoeV]

I've got to admit something here; I admire photo sites like Toy Camera Forum and the Lomo site. It's mainly to do with all the creative energy those folks seem to display, with their plethora of cross-processed color and intriguing B/W work. And the "rumbles", as they call a group photo project. And group projects where they do multiple exposures on the same roll of film that gets passed around via mail.

Lots of users on Lomo constantly posting updates to their photo blogs. I spent some time late last night enjoying surfing these blogs, admiring the energy and newness of it all. If I was to come to some conclusion it would be that, gimmick or not, Lomo and other toy cameras are keeping film alive, with a newness of energy that is consistent with a real creative movement, not just rehashed styles of now-dead photographers. Sure, they're plastic crap, over-priced. I don't know if it's because, being low-tech, they're less intimidating than higher-end gear, but these genre of cameras seem to spur people into unwinding their creativity in unique ways. That can only be good for photography. And I don't even own a toy camera or Lomo, excepting a cheap little plastic 110 keychain camera.

~Joe

 

[Keith]

The fact that the holga style cameras produce fuzzy distorted vignetted images is because of the inherant poor design of the optics ... that I can cope with.

The Lensbaby is another matter though ... I can't decide whether they're a total gimmick or not?

 

[WDPictures]

Also thinking about the Lensbaby as I was reading down the posts. Have no experience or interest in them personally but I can see the appeal and they are a lot smaller to throw in a camera bag than a Holga, although much more expensive. There can be a fine line between gimmick and style. In the hands of a creative, skilled photographer the line becomes very fine. Moderation is key for what I like look at otherwise it does tend to be gimmicky. Couldn't the same discussion be had for other specific looking image techniques?