Lomography Ringflash adds bursts of color to your art
We know you're probably busy having fun with that oh-so-cute Lomo Oktomat, but for those looking to get down to business, the Lomographic Ringflash is all but a necessity. Designed to operate on the Lomo LC-A, LC-A+, Fisheye, Fisheye 2, Holga, and Diana cameras, this device won't play nice with your fancy Nikon or Canon, but for those in the know, the results are quite impressive. When mounted on your camera, the Ringflash completely surrounds your lens and "throws a burst of perfectly even light onto your subject." Additionally, an array of color gels can spice things up even more by blasting out psychedelic rays, and best of all, the whole shebang only costs $65.

















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Alex Vorn @ Jul 14th 2007 10:07AM
A lot of interesting things on this blog! I like it.
Wwhat @ Jul 14th 2007 10:16AM
Ringflash eh, those have been around since the what? 1930's?
Richard Lamsdale @ Jul 14th 2007 10:30AM
In my head you sound like Mr Burns from the Simpsons :-) Simpson, eh?
numptydumpty @ Jul 14th 2007 10:36AM
yup and we've had smartasses since the what, 14th century? nothing changes eh...
Wwhat @ Jul 14th 2007 11:34AM
Smithers what are these people doing dissing my comment.
Mr. Burns @ Jul 15th 2007 11:55PM
I say when it's Christmas!
fenix @ Jul 14th 2007 10:26AM
I didn't know SIMON made a comeback.
silverblackvoid @ Jul 14th 2007 10:58AM
this thing is weird but cool. i've got a sony cybershot w5. can i mount this ringflash on my cam. it would be nice to get the *trippy* shots in realtime without modifying them in photoshop.
Phil @ Jul 14th 2007 11:52AM
Can anyone say "gimmick"??
The most common use for ringlights is for macro photography - for portraits, etc. and everyday use, the light is usually too direct. However, if you were interested in really good macro shots, why would you bother with buying a Russian camera that nobody else uses? Compare the above with a functional, useful product (then note the price)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194480-USA/Canon_2356A002_MR_14EX_TTL_Ring_Lite.html
Like I said, a gimmick - and not worth anybody's time.
easy @ Jul 14th 2007 12:55PM
In case you weren't in the know, there's a whole subculture surrounding these cameras. http://www.lomography.com/about/ . It's not about measured, metered, perfect shots. It's mostly about fun.
Tamago @ Jul 14th 2007 1:24PM
Apparently a good deal of you are not familiar with lomography.
lettcco @ Jul 15th 2007 2:59AM
what's so fun about grainy low Q pictures? and the oktomat? Just look at the oktomat pool on flickr...waste of electronic storage.
um, no @ Jul 15th 2007 12:20PM
lomo products are somewhat badly built, which makes sense because they're faux-vintage and plastic-ey. but those who're into the whole lomography thing don't usually care about that. you can get some interesting results from them, especially the holga, but on the whole lomo products are not worth it.
i suppose a ring flash would be quite nice, but as to how useful it really is, i wouldn't know. the coloursplash flash was okay since it fit my pentax k1000, but will this do the same?
FreezeRabbit @ Jul 16th 2007 9:54AM
Bad news for the lomography fans (and it's clearly news to them): if you didn't put effort into it, it ain't art.
Money doesn't count as effort.
mike k. @ Jul 16th 2007 4:51PM
Wow, whats with all the hate towards the Lomo Lc-A and the like. Its an interesting camera, that is small and portable, and takes more fun shots than a normal point and shoot camera. If you don't like the pictures who cares, don't buy one.
Also to FreezeRabbit, i agree with you that money is not art, but to say that people don't put some sort of effort into the really good pictures taken with Lomo's is obscenely biased and short sighted. You can put work into any form of photography with any camera, no matter what its features. I'd be more concerned about people buying 2000 dollar Nikon digital SLR setups, and saying they're trying to buy art with money, instead of creating it.
Comrade Penguin @ Jul 16th 2007 5:30PM
Indeed Lomo is very much fun. I use a Minolta 9000AF for all the "serious" photography but playing around with my fisheye or Smena is great for taking quirky pictures of mates on a night out. The light leeks, softness, and off colour tones are great. It depends what your into Photography for, capturing something in it's best way using lighting etc to bring out beauty, or if you want to create something thats not really there, colour trails, blown out contrasts etc. Ultimately most of the stuff is cheap and not designed for high art but capturing something a bit more personal.
As for the grain comment clever use of it can be really very very beautiful. It's another thing that seemingly has lessened with the rise of the digital camera which I find a shame but I suppose it just didn't float enough peoples boat.
FreezeRabbit @ Jul 17th 2007 4:44AM
My post was partly in response to comments made on the Oktomat post. I failed to mention that, because I wanted to keep my post brief and to the point, and I see now that that was wrong of me. I apologize. I should have posted there rather than here -- I foolishly decided to respond to the newer post instead. I'll provide the background behind my angry response.
It was pointed out that most Lomo effects could be easily simulated in Photoshop, and someone responded by comparing the use of Lomo equipment (rather than Photoshop filters) to using paints and canvas (rather than Corel Painter). I felt that the comparison was insulting to real artists.
I do agree that thought and effort can be applied to Lomo cameras, and art can be made with broken tools -- but that isn't Lomography. Lomography's cardinal rule is, I keep hearing, "Don't think, just shoot." Not art.
Anyway, I suspect a real artist, seeking to do that, would be more likely to pick up a broken old camera at a flea market, rather than to pay what Lomo is charging for their bad optics.
On the other hand, anyone who claims that Photoshop is cheaper than a Lomo is obviously using the BitTorrent Discount.