I'm starting to get it, the whole "lomo" thing. The aesthetic. It's brilliantly cool. And fun.
I started thinking that my lomo shots don't look like other peoples' lomo shots. I've been scanning and doing some color correction to make them "look good", the way I would with a "non-lomo" shot.
Lomography is often described in alternatively punk or Zen terms. Shooting without thinking. Throwing out all rules, no shutter speed, no depth of field, and anyone can do it. No more technical mumbo jumbo, no more expensive gear.
But scanning negatives shot with a lomo doesn't automatically give you lomography. When the lomo movement began in the 80s, aside from the shooting there was still the processing and printing, and that's where the tripped out essence of lomography came out. The limitations of lomo-type cameras were its strength, and so whacked out colors, saturation, and contrast - things that were adjustable in processing and printing - became the hallmark of lomo. I'm making this up, folks.
To get to the point, compare the previous "normal" color correction of the Little Red Lighthouse to this (whoops, actually the previous one is the straight scan):
And at this point, I say stop thinking, stop analyzing, stop concretizing lomo. The only consideration is that I like this one better than the "normal" one. Yo'm sayn'?