I like the idea of lomography. My understanding is that it's kind of shoot from the hip photography. "Shoot, don't think," is the lomographic mantra. It's not that I'm into trendy or esoteric aesthetic movements, it's more that I find a lomographic approach to photography liberating. I was taught that photographs should be just so, heads should be in the entire frame, not cut off just above the eyes, and that one should carefully take into consideration the lighting and framing of the subject. Heck, even the idea that a photo should have a subject, that it should be about something. That's why I like this idea, even if I'm misinterpreting it. Photos capture images of instants in time, but time does not stand still while you record your observation onto film or onto a digital medium. People move; a child at play sprints across a field of vision, passersby saunter through the viewfinder, cars careen past in a blur.

Lomo is good because I don't need to worry when my pictures aren't composed like Ansel Adams'. I don't feel bad when the images are blurred, or too dark or overexposed. I find that sheer volume makes up for the quality problem, that if I take 100 images, 5 or 6 are bound to be good and the rest will be okay to burn to a cd, and even to use in a slideshow. .

So shoot, don't think.