Why do people love the Holga so much ?

OP
BADGER.BRAD
Messages
1,287
Name
Brad
Edit My Images
Yes
I feel, is the bit people are missing. Mediocre photos shot using a crap cam aren't suddenly elevated to some higher status just because they're shot on a crap cam, and have that 'crap cam' look; they're mediocre photos shot using a crap cam; anything else is just added pretentiousness. Emperor's New Clothes.
The reverse of this could also be said, a crap photo on a £20,000 camera would still be a crap photo the fact you had shot it on a £20,000 pound camera with 50 billion pixels would not give it a higher status and thinking it did would again be the definition of pretentiousness !
 
Last edited:

AZ6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,051
Edit My Images
No
The reverse of this could also be said, a crap photo on a £20,000 camera would still be a crap photo the fact you had shot it on a £20,000 pound camera with 50 billion pixels would not give it a higher status and thinking it did would again be the definition of pretentiousness !
Nobody is claiming this though.
 
Messages
3,529
Edit My Images
No
The reverse of this could also be said, a crap photo on a £20,000 camera would still be a crap photo the fact you had shot it on a £20,000 pound camera with 50 billion pixels would not give it a higher status and thinking it did would again be the definition of pretentiousness !
'I always say, there's nothing worse than a clear, sharp image of a fuzzy concept. You get a terrible concept - it might be physically sharp, but it's just empty or in bad taste.'

- Ansel Adams

Nobody is claiming this though.
Except on Leica forums. :)
 
Messages
1,492
Name
Lloyd
Edit My Images
Yes
I love these two quotes on the frontpage of tokyocamerastyle:


If you want to change your photographs, you need to change cameras. Changing cameras means that your photographs will change. A really good camera has something I suppose you might describe as its own distinctive aura.

-- Nobuyoshi Araki

I don’t think about what camera I should use that much. I just pick up the one that looks nicest on the day


-- William Eggleston


Some days that’s an 8x10, other days it’s just my iPhone. Don’t overthink it, use what you vibe with and produces results closest to your intent.
 
Messages
5,918
Edit My Images
Yes
I've never got the Holga thing, in so far as why people would spend £50+ on a new chunk of plastic when there are so many interesting vintage box type cameras around in full working order for less than £10? Many of them will give similar (or perhaps even more unique and pleasing effects) and you could buy five or six of those classic cameras for the price of a new plastic Holga. Plus, you aren't encouraging the production of yet more plastic to be recycled or put into landfill in a few years time when the camera breaks.

As for the results, the artistic 'skill' comes in learning the effects that the camera will give in various lighting conditions, then matching that specific effect to suit a particular subject or scene. However, it seems not all Holga users have grasped this concept, and some just trot out a series of blurry, underexposed images that just have a 'Holga' look to them, but don't actually add anything to the often rather mundane image being presented as an 'arty' photo.

Instead of people thinking 'now why do I like that photo', it seems they just see it's been taken with a Holga and think buying one will make any photos they take with it look like that. It's not that simple! It's a bit like Les Dawson's famous comedic piano playing, you've got to play very well to play that badly.

Each to their own though, and if using a Holga gives people pleasure then who is anyone else to criticise this or say it's wrong? One of my photography hobbies as a young teenager was buying cheap box type cameras and mock TLRs from jumble sales and junk shops then putting some film through them to see what I could get out of them. Some of the results:

1924 Kodak Brownie Box Camera on Kodak Ektachrome 100 taken around 1979.



Coronet Twelve-20 TLR box camera (which produces a halo effect when shot into the sun using the sliding smaller aperture) on Ektachrome 100 taken around 1979.




And matching the 'look' of the camera to the scene, one from that 1924 Kodak Brownie again, taken on a dull day in 2017 on Fuji Acros 100.



That's the thing with using old cameras, 'weaknesses' can be used as strengths; shooting this triplet lensed 1964 Yashica 635 TLR wide open gives lots of swirly bokeh, which lends a time-tunnel type effect to the background of this photo of a steam punk.




So that's why I don't really understand the Holga thing, as lots of fun can be had exploring 'vintage' budget alternatives (not that a Yashica TLR is a budget camera, that was only included to illustrate a point). However, that's just me and the opinion and thinking of others will vary. (y)
 
Last edited:
OP
BADGER.BRAD
Messages
1,287
Name
Brad
Edit My Images
Yes
Nobody is claiming this though.
As far as I've read and taken in no one has claimed that the Holga produces images technically better than modern digitals or more sofistcated film cameras ! just that they like the look of the results for certain subjects or when they just feel like using one.
 
OP
BADGER.BRAD
Messages
1,287
Name
Brad
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm with you Mr Badger theres no way I'd go out and spend £50 on a Holga when there are plenty of other cameras about. I've gone through quite a few up to this point putting a film through and seeing how they work in different lighting conditions where the focus point is on the more simple cameras and then trying to match the camera to the subject and conditions. The Holga was one I just wanted to try to see what the Holga thing was all about and I must admit I do quite like it, the fact it's a 120 roll film camera is new to me and I had a number of films that would not show the frame numbers on my Brownie number 2 so thought I'll try a cheap second hand Holga. There are many more consumer cameras on my list and I still have to try the pinhole thing.
 
Messages
4,456
Name
Nige
Edit My Images
No
Have a laugh. This actually perfectly illustrates my point regarding the current trend for low quality cams to take photos on. There's no such thing as 'Holga photos'. That's just utter pretentiousness, sorry. What you actually mean, is images shot on a low quality cam. Of which the Holga is just one of many. I've got my mum's old Kodak Instamatic 56x on a shelf; I love it as an ornament, a reminder of the past, but there's no way I want to use it to take photos on. Even if I could get film for it, it'd be a waste of time, energy, money and resources. It's crap. It doesn't take 'Instamatic 56x photos', it just takes (took) crap quality ones.
It just appears to illustrate your personal prejudices about people who use such cameras. I call them Holga photos because they were taken with my Holga. Simple as that. It's not a hard concept to grasp. I don't own any other low-quality cameras, so the term is perfectly acceptable in my situation. The images that the Holga makes in comparison to any other camera I own are immediately distinctive (in a way that, say, comparible photos taken with my Olympus OM-1 and Nikon F80 are not), It's not pretentious whatsoever, in the same way that my saying I'm going to make photos using Tri-X, or Portra, or on Polaroid, or I'm going to make some macro photos isn't pretentious - it's just a description.

I hadn't heard of Michael Kenna, mentioned earlier in this thread, so I googled him. He's clearly a great photographer, no question. Some fantastic photos. Including some of those he shot using a Holga (I notice there's a pic of him using a Hasselblad, so he's clearly also a fan of image quality). But those pics he shot using a Holga aren't great because he used a Holga; they're great cos he's a great photographer.
The exact same thing could be said of any camera, from a diposable point-and-shoot, to the latest state-of-the art digital Hasselblad.

And this, I feel, is the bit people are missing. Mediocre photos shot using a crap cam aren't suddenly elevated to some higher status just because they're shot on a crap cam, and have that 'crap cam' look; they're mediocre photos shot using a crap cam; anything else is just added pretentiousness. Emperor's New Clothes.
Who said that they were?

If it's a case of the only cam you have, is a Holga, I don't have an issue with that at all. I'm happy to overlook technical deficiencies, if the photo itself it of merit in it's own right. It's like projects I've seen where they give kids a disposable cam, and see what comes out; you can get some cracking images, regardless of the actual image quality. A friend did a youth project like that, and they produced a little book out of it, it was great. So; I'm not against the use of cheap cams at all. If you choose one deliberately, like Michael Kenna, to see what can be done with such a cam, and produced the kind of shots he did, then that's wonderful. I'm totally for that, 100%. But if you're just using one cos it's trendy and 'cool', then that its the very definition of pretentiousness.
Again, who here has suggested that they're using them for this reason (other than yourself?)

Cue loads of Holga users lining up to protest how they don't follow fashion trends at all, and how all their work is soooo righteous and sincere, etc etc etc....
I don't need to protest anything. It's you who seems incapable of taking people at their word. Again, point out where someone here has said their Holga photos are "righteous and sincere"?
 

RaglanSurf

Forum Idiot - FPOTY
Messages
11,125
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
The highlighted phrases are key. It's your preference to not use a Holga, which is fine. Those of us who do don't need to be informed of the camera's shortcomings, or that better image quality can be had from a different model. We use Holga's (and other less than perfect kit) because we enjoy doing so. In most cases it isn't the only camera we use and many of us have very capable digital models (and better specified film cameras) too, and while it is possible to "downgrade" a digital image to mimic the Holga look, it's not something I personally want to do because I wouldn't really enjoy that process as opposed to doing it "in the field".

I enjoy the process and challenge of getting photos I'm happy with using a basic piece of kit, and I bought my Holga (for £20) especially because I'd seen other people's Holga photos that I liked and wanted to make some of my own. I certainly don't believe that all Holga photos are good - many of them are awful, including many of mine, certainly. But then again, the same goes for photos from any camera. I'm also as far from being a hipster or the sort of person who engages in anything for the sake of fashion as you can possibly imagine. I make photos for myself. If anyone else likes them isn't a concern (although it makes me happy if they do).



For me personally, it's because I don't want to. I know that I can, I just choose not to. Not having an ultra-sharp version of a scene I deliberately photographed with my Holga (or any film camera for that matter) isn't something that bothers me at all.
^^^^This^^^^^ Absolutely 100% this, I don't need to add anything.

Edit: Actually I just want to add that any photo I make with my Holga, Lomo or pinhole cameras are soooooo very righteous and heartbreakingly sincere :LOL:
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,824
Edit My Images
No
Actually I just want to add that any photo I make with my Holga, Lomo or pinhole cameras are soooooo very righteous and heartbreakingly sincere :LOL:
All my digital pictures are blessed by a team consisting of a priest, a vicar, a rabbi and an imam. Not that I'm trying to one up you or anything like that... :naughty: :coat:
 

AZ6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,051
Edit My Images
No
I don't need to protest anything.
:LOL: But you will anyway. Sooo defensive...


The images that the Holga makes in comparison to any other camera I own are immediately distinctive (in a way that, say, comparible photos taken with my Olympus OM-1 and Nikon F80 are not),
Ooh, so they look like they could only have been taken using a Holga (as opposed to any other really cheap crap cam)? Wow! :LOL:

I get that people like the particular visual style offered by cheap cams; I did post earlier about how such an aesthetic has become so popular, but no-one so far seems to have engaged with that idea. But what I, and a few others are doing, is being critical of the cult of personality that surrounds a cheap, crap cam. And how it is literally pretentiousness, that makes people gush about that aesthetic, like it's something new and 'sexy'. Yet loads of us were producing such fuzzy, blurred and indistinct photos way back decades ago, cos crap cams were all we could afford/have access to. Most of us moved on to better equipment, and enjoyed the resulting improvement in the quality of our images. So; I'm not down on anyone who wants to take a crap cam out and have fun with it. That's wonderful. Enjoy. I'm just cynical about the cult of that aesthetic; it's being used to sell a lot of plastic junk that will very quickly end up in landfill, and of course make someone, somewhere, hopefully a lot of money. You can quite easily replicate that same aesthetic with a whole load of existing old cams, for absolute pennies, as others have mentioned. And you could just call it 'retro photography or summat, if you must. To me, it's just photography, and whilst Marshall McLuhan does have a point, pushing a particular aesthetic for the sake of it is just as pretentious as buying new music on cassette tape, or vinyl, when other, better formats exist. These hipsters, eh?

Crack on, enjoy yourself. But don't cry if someone else just goes 'meh'.
 

AZ6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,051
Edit My Images
No
All my digital pictures are blessed by a team consisting of a priest, a vicar, a rabbi and an imam. Not that I'm trying to one up you or anything like that... :naughty: :coat:
Pft. How very mainstream. Mine are consecrated by a team including a Shaolin monk, a Sufi Dervish, a Mayan priestess and a member of the Druze sect... ;)
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,625
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Well just to add:- I like my old shots using crap cameras erm well because they are old (60 + years) and some show things that you wouldn't see to day like record shots....but for me that was the past and if I wanted to take shots of the same places today (e.g. now and then) wouldn't take another inferior quality shot (by putting vaseline over a lens filter) but a nice sharp one.
 

RaglanSurf

Forum Idiot - FPOTY
Messages
11,125
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
:LOL: But you will anyway. Sooo defensive...



Ooh, so they look like they could only have been taken using a Holga (as opposed to any other really cheap crap cam)? Wow! :LOL:

I get that people like the particular visual style offered by cheap cams; I did post earlier about how such an aesthetic has become so popular, but no-one so far seems to have engaged with that idea. But what I, and a few others are doing, is being critical of the cult of personality that surrounds a cheap, crap cam. And how it is literally pretentiousness, that makes people gush about that aesthetic, like it's something new and 'sexy'. Yet loads of us were producing such fuzzy, blurred and indistinct photos way back decades ago, cos crap cams were all we could afford/have access to. Most of us moved on to better equipment, and enjoyed the resulting improvement in the quality of our images. So; I'm not down on anyone who wants to take a crap cam out and have fun with it. That's wonderful. Enjoy. I'm just cynical about the cult of that aesthetic; it's being used to sell a lot of plastic junk that will very quickly end up in landfill, and of course make someone, somewhere, hopefully a lot of money. You can quite easily replicate that same aesthetic with a whole load of existing old cams, for absolute pennies, as others have mentioned. And you could just call it 'retro photography or summat, if you must. To me, it's just photography, and whilst Marshall McLuhan does have a point, pushing a particular aesthetic for the sake of it is just as pretentious as buying new music on cassette tape, or vinyl, when other, better formats exist. These hipsters, eh?

Crack on, enjoy yourself. But don't cry if someone else just goes 'meh'.
Why on earth do you bother? I cant see anyone crying, If you don't like it, you don't like it, that's your prerogative, if you have something constructive to add then do it.
 

RaglanSurf

Forum Idiot - FPOTY
Messages
11,125
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes

AZ6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,051
Edit My Images
No
if you have something constructive to add then do it.
I have. Read my posts again. Try to engage with the ideas within.

Then try to add something constructive yourself.
 
Messages
3,735
Name
Adrian
Edit My Images
No
just dusted off my old epson 4490 and fired up vuescan and had a look at my box of holga negatives - i have 2 holgas and must have shot 100s of rolls between 2008 & 2010 but then the holgas and negatives got mothballed and i almost forgot about them till now - this was an rvp100 roll from barcelona 2010 (c41 process via peak imaging) 2020-08-01-0007.jpg
 
Last edited:

Andysnap

<span class="poty">POTY (Film) 2015</span>
Messages
15,920
Name
Andy Grant
Edit My Images
Yes
Bless. Is there something you don't understand? Would you like me to explain it for you?
Ask yourself a question, would you talk to someone you didnt know like this in a pub or on the street? If you did I suspect that you would wake up with a crowd around you. This section of the forum is renowned for its patience and politeness and I for one do not appreciate your belligerent and frankly unpleasant attitude to others on here. I will admit that it isn't entirely your fault and certain other contributors should step back and ease off with the argumentative posts, we are all grown ups and should behave like grown ups, this isn't the Wedding Section :)
 
Messages
1,832
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
Have a laugh. This actually perfectly illustrates my point regarding the current trend for low quality cams to take photos on. There's no such thing as 'Holga photos'. That's just utter pretentiousness, sorry. What you actually mean, is images shot on a low quality cam. Of which the Holga is just one of many. I've got my mum's old Kodak Instamatic 56x on a shelf; I love it as an ornament, a reminder of the past, but there's no way I want to use it to take photos on. Even if I could get film for it, it'd be a waste of time, energy, money and resources. It's crap. It doesn't take 'Instamatic 56x photos', it just takes (took) crap quality ones.

I hadn't heard of Michael Kenna, mentioned earlier in this thread, so I googled him. He's clearly a great photographer, no question. Some fantastic photos. Including some of those he shot using a Holga (I notice there's a pic of him using a Hasselblad, so he's clearly also a fan of image quality). But those pics he shot using a Holga aren't great because he used a Holga; they're great cos he's a great photographer. And this, I feel, is the bit people are missing. Mediocre photos shot using a crap cam aren't suddenly elevated to some higher status just because they're shot on a crap cam, and have that 'crap cam' look; they're mediocre photos shot using a crap cam; anything else is just added pretentiousness. Emperor's New Clothes.

Of Skysh4rk's pics, the one I really like is of the little boy enjoying being on the beach. It's a lovely shot. But for me, it's let down somewhat by having poor image quality, which is down to the cam. The sharpness is already falling off on the boy's face, which is where you'd want it to be, really. Shame.

If it's a case of the only cam you have, is a Holga, I don't have an issue with that at all. I'm happy to overlook technical deficiencies, if the photo itself it of merit in it's own right. It's like projects I've seen where they give kids a disposable cam, and see what comes out; you can get some cracking images, regardless of the actual image quality. A friend did a youth project like that, and they produced a little book out of it, it was great. So; I'm not against the use of cheap cams at all. If you choose one deliberately, like Michael Kenna, to see what can be done with such a cam, and produced the kind of shots he did, then that's wonderful. I'm totally for that, 100%. But if you're just using one cos it's trendy and 'cool', then that its the very definition of pretentiousness.

Cue loads of Holga users lining up to protest how they don't follow fashion trends at all, and how all their work is soooo righteous and sincere, etc etc etc....
I suggest you read the preface to Kennas book "Holga" and while youre at it read the preface to Burnstines "Absence of Being"

Another artist is Anne Arden McDonald whos Work with among other cameras the Diana is discussed here
And her Work here

You could also take a look at the Work by David Burnett


Or Mark Sink, James Balog or Perry Dilbeck or..............

There are plenty of proffesionals and very serious artists who use this type of cameras for the qualities imbedded in them in order to create.
You could also take a look at Steve O'Nions YT channel and search for his Pinhole and Holga videos.

I do not expect you to like this kind of imagery. Its ok you dont and I think we All get that now but purely dismissing og as crap and hipster trends with salty remarks are uncalled for.
I can only Guess it's due to lack of understanding photography Deeper than MP and resolution.
 
Messages
2,824
Edit My Images
No
I can only Guess it's due to lack of understanding photography Deeper than MP and resolution.
I don't believe that statements of that type further the discussion and they might well have the effect of hardening opposition to your case.

Let's just stop trying to push a particular type of image as being better than another. All art is entirely in the eye of the beholder so why not accept that your opinion is worth exactly the same as mine or that of anyone else?
 

TheBigYin

Staff member
Messages
23,374
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Bless. Is there something you don't understand? Would you like me to explain it for you?
keep the confrontational attitude for your participation in the digital gear threads please... better still, keep it for interactions in real life instead, as overall, management (not just me, but pretty much all the active moderation staff) are becoming sick and tired with getting reports of you being capable of starting an argument in an empty room.

If you realise your views aren't popular in here, and you've said your piece, just "move on" - when it comes to the point where people are accusing you of trolling, it's definitely the time to "make your excuses and leave".
 
Messages
2,824
Edit My Images
No
this was an rvp100 roll from barcelona 2010 (c41 process via peak imaging)
I think that's a good example of a picture to which the Holga is well suited.
 
OP
BADGER.BRAD
Messages
1,287
Name
Brad
Edit My Images
Yes
It really is a shame that some of these discussions end in an argument rather than a discussion on the actual topic. When i originally posted the thread up i invited opinions from all people whether you liked or disliked the Holga( or cameras of that type )and why you do or don't like them. certain people have to start an argument and destroy the discussion .rather than adding to it, not just on this thread. . A long time ago I used to use CB radio and noticed the same type of people who would rather cause chaos and destroy other peoples fun than get involved in the conversation. If you ever bumped into them in real life they were generally very sheepish inadequate individuals.
 
Last edited:

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,625
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
It really is a shame that some of these discussions end in an argument rather than a discussion on the actual topic. When i originally posted the thread up i invited opinions from all people whether you liked or disliked the Holga( or cameras of that type )and why you do or don't like them. certain people have to start an argument and destroy the discussion .rather than adding to it, not just on this thread. . A long time ago I used to use CB radio and noticed the same type of people who would rather cause chaos and destroy other peoples fun than get involved in the conversation. If you ever bumped into them in real life they were generally very sheepish inadequate individuals.
Ah well you see it's all to do with the little grey cells, if everyone can\could understand and accept why someone would use a Holga and similar cameras there would be no arguments...erm I've got to the "accept" bit so faro_O
 
Last edited:
OP
BADGER.BRAD
Messages
1,287
Name
Brad
Edit My Images
Yes
This was one of my very first photos with the Holga and was really just a test of how it would perform at various distances and light conditions. On this day I was using 400 ASA film and the conditions were very overcast.from this experiment I I found one particular trait of my Holga ( I think most of them are similar) that could be used to adbvantage and that is the fact it is in fairly good focus in the centre and this falls of at the edges concentrating the eye on the subject which I would place in the centre. This is what I enjoy about using lowfi cameras and trying to get the best from them and then know what images each is best used for. This was one of about 9ish images out of the 12 that I took that turned out well . One of the others was off to some degree because I hadn't realised that what you see in the view finder is a lot narrower than the lens sees. and I doubled up on the first shot which was not great as I had had to take the film back out of the camera due to me not being sure if I had left the 6x4.5 insert in when I wanted square format, This first shot was not great as I think the subject was too far away and the camera introduces too much burr

11a.jpg

and the one that was too far away ( I know I said one of my photos at the start)

1a.jpg
 
Messages
3,735
Name
Adrian
Edit My Images
No
i think i pretty soon ended up ditching the 'mask' that goes inside the holga - also i seem to remember one day i accidentally left the camera focus set to 'close' while i was shooting in cardiff and the pictures came out with even better blur than normal so i think from then on i always just left it set to close focus
 
Messages
1,832
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
I don't believe that statements of that type further the discussion and they might well have the effect of hardening opposition to your case.

Let's just stop trying to push a particular type of image as being better than another. All art is entirely in the eye of the beholder so why not accept that your opinion is worth exactly the same as mine or that of anyone else?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with lacking understanding in any field. There's are tons of stuff I don't understand. I just hope I know enough of my shortcomings to not be on the ugly place on the Dunning-Krüger graph:)
 
Last edited:

AZ6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,051
Edit My Images
No
Hmm. Seems I've ruffled a few feathers... :LOL:

Ok. In an attempt to put this to bed, I'm just gonna say this:

At no point, have I said that anyone shouldn't use whatever cam they want, to achieve any effect they desire. I think I said 'crack on and enjoy yourself', somewhere up there. I have absolutely no problem at all, with people shooting pics on Holgas, or any other cam. I think some people have misunderstood this, and seen it as a personal attack; it isn't.

What it is, is my view (one which is clearly shared by several others on this thread) that the whole 'lomography/lo-fi' type fad, is something that is clearly being driven by commercial interests, where a cult of personality surrounding particular cams, and a particular aesthetic style, is being touted as some kind of 'Emperor's New Clothes' pretentiousness. This does NOT mean that ALL photos shot using Holgas/whatever, or of that particular aesthetic style, fall into 'w***y pretentiousness'. I've never said that at all. Just, that many of us just aren't taken in by the cult of personality thing, where otherwise pretty mediocre images are elevated to some sort of undeserved status, just because they happen to fit in with a particular trend. This IS the case with a lot of 'lo-fi/lomography' type stuff. So much so, that you can get a 'Holga' app for your 'phone, ffs.

As for 'trolling'; such a weak, thoughtless way of trying to discredit an opinion you don't share. Pathetic.

If you do read my posts, you'll see I have attempted to open up the debate to try to discuss why such an aesthetic has become popular. I had hoped for at least some reaction to that, as I think it would be very interesting. And an opportunity for those who enjoy using cheap old cams, to discuss why they are fans of that aesthetic. So far, no takers. Then I get accused of not being 'constructive' (without the accuser actually contributing anything constructive themselves). Please; do feel free to discuss the aesthetic style; after all, isn't that the purpose of such a forum?

would you talk to someone you didnt know like this in a pub or on the street?
Erm, I'd see no reason not to. Having faced far more dangerous real life situations than an online photography forum, I am quite happy with my approach to life. It's served me well so far. :)

As for:
If you did I suspect that you would wake up with a crowd around you.
Probably in A&E ....
Aggression by proxy, such as this, is really quite pathetic, and sad.

If you realise your views aren't popular in here, and you've said your piece, just "move on" - when it comes to the point where people are accusing you of trolling, it's definitely the time to "make your excuses and leave".
I'll answer any criticism openly and honestly. End of. I have the same right to an opinion as anyone else on here. I expect that to be respected, same as anyone else. People might not like my 'style', but I've not been abusive or broken any forum rules.

I do not expect you to like this kind of imagery. Its ok you dont and I think we All get that now but purely dismissing og as crap and hipster trends with salty remarks are uncalled for.
I can only Guess it's due to lack of understanding photography Deeper than MP and resolution.
I think my comments above are adequate in explaining my position. I think there has been a certain lack of comprehension, that has led to some people getting their knickers in a twist.

I'd like to think I have a reasonable understanding of photography as a medium. I was thinking of how a discussion on such types of cams, and the aesthetic style produced using them, could lead perhaps to something like the photography of the late Soviet era, where many photographers had very limited, basic and comparitively lower quality equipment, yet were still able to produce some fantastic images. interesting article here:


But praps that's for another day.

Anyway; to those who felt upset by any of my comments, I apologise. Peace.
 

Andysnap

<span class="poty">POTY (Film) 2015</span>
Messages
15,920
Name
Andy Grant
Edit My Images
Yes

TheBigYin

Staff member
Messages
23,374
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I think you may have missed my subtle hint...

If you realise your views aren't popular in here, and you've said your piece, just "move on" - when it comes to the point where people are accusing you of trolling, it's definitely the time to "make your excuses and leave".
Was not an invitation to share your thoughts further. It was a hint that if you didn't make your peace and disappear, disappearance would be thrust upon you.

Also, please be aware that insulting staff, and ignoring their instructions (albeit phrased as a suggestion in this case, as this is film and conventional, and we are a little better mannered in here) IS actually against forum rules, and also not the brightest way of either making your case or remaining around to argue it in the longer term...

Of course, there is the possibility that you're just angling for "suicide by Moderator" in which case, I'd be happy to oblige, though I think there'd probably be a queue of staff already forming as I type this...
 
Last edited:
OP
BADGER.BRAD
Messages
1,287
Name
Brad
Edit My Images
Yes
As a point of interest does anyone know how early in it's production this camera was used by more serious photographers rather than a cheap camera for consumers ? Has anyone used the Diana cameras and how do they compare. ?
 
Messages
2,824
Edit My Images
No
Bert Hardy used a box camera with a simple lens for the famous picture of two girls at the seaside in 1951. I think he qualifies as a serious photographer. :naughty:
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,625
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
I think you may have missed my subtle hint...



Was not an invitation to share your thoughts further. It was a hint that if you didn't make your peace and disappear, disappearance would be thrust upon you.

Also, please be aware that insulting staff, and ignoring their instructions (albeit phrased as a suggestion in this case, as this is film and conventional, and were a little better mannered in here) IS actually against forum rules, and also not the brightest way of either making your case or remaining around to argue it in the longer term...

Of course, there is the possibility that you're just angling for "suicide by Moderator" in which case, I'd be happy to oblige, though I think there'd probably be a queue of staff already forming as I type this...
OR ;)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fYngTUZeUQ
 
Messages
1,832
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
..but you can use e.g. Rollei, SLR, LF etc and produce the results from pinhole or Holga etc in Photoshop or the darkroom. Ok maybe you could see the difference from using pinhole etc but could anyone else.
And I do get users of pinholes etc can be bit of fun for some and it's back to horses for courses and that we all agree.
Like Nick Brandts "On this earth" shot on a Pentax 67 scanned and processed digitally. Some of the images had P/N55 borders added no matter their aspect ratio and even if it's only a few it quickly becomes a bit of cliché. Great body of Work none the less
 
Top