Why do people love the Holga so much ?

Messages
5,107
Name
Nige
Edit My Images
No
Who needs post processing? All you need is a genuine 1950s tinplate mock TLR box camera, which even chucks in a free halo when it's shot into the sun with the sliding small aperture selected. (y)

You know when you've been out-Holga-ed! ;)
While they have their own unique charm (you could probably find a crock of gold at the edge of frame 1 :) ), they don't really look like Holga photos to my eyes though.
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
11,110
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
That's one of the maddest comparisons I’ve read on this site and I’ve read some mad ones.
Only humans have the "luxury" to except something fuzzy etc and call it art or whatever, It does seem odd to me that nature took millions of years to perfect our eyes, but today some people turn a subject into something looking fuzzy, but I don't mind\like shots with poorer lenses\equipment used in the past as that was the way it was, and do give some likes for shots produced here for Holgas and pinholes shots as I appreciate the effort\achievement in producing a shot with that equipment.
Anyway whatever turns you on and hope my eyes don't deteriorate to Holga lenses and don't have to buy another tv because it's starting to look like Holga shots ;)
 
D

Deleted member 21335

Guest
Only humans have the "luxury" to except something fuzzy etc and call it art or whatever, It does seem odd to me that nature took millions of years to perfect our eyes, but today some people turn a subject into something looking fuzzy, but I don't mind\like shots with poorer lenses\equipment used in the past as that was the way it was, and do give some likes for shots produced here for Holgas and pinholes shots as I appreciate the effort\achievement in producing a shot with that equipment.
Anyway whatever turns you on and hope my eyes don't deteriorate to Holga lenses and don't have to buy another tv because it's starting to look like Holga shots ;)
By that same rationale, Humans see in colour yet I assume you are happy to see images presented in black and white? As long as they are razor sharp, of course? Or would you dismiss anything presented in anything other than colour because that's how we see the world?

The whole fact that we now, as photogrpahers largely judge images by their sharpness above content, feeling, moment, engagement is ridiculous. Perhaps I (and we all) should disregard any of the books I have on the shelf have anything other than sharp images in them. You see, young people who are easily influenced (like I was in my 20s) by 'experienced' photographers on forums or camera clubs could so easily be dissuaded from a creative and artistic life by comments about the 'rules of photography' (another thread that's hitting the top of the page currently) and be driven to produce trite, boring photogrpahs that are perfectly razor sharp and on a third and....yawn. Use the cameras you love, make the images you love, shoot the things you love. Only then will you produce authentic imagery that will attract attention from people who actually matter. And let's be honest, as much as we all say that we do this for ourselves, peer recognition and praise is nice to hear, particularly if someone wants to make a living from it.
 

sirch

Official Forum Numpty 2015,FPOTY 2020
Messages
10,259
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Here's my attempt. I used a JPG shot with a Nikon D3200 as the starting point. It was already B&W and had some PP (including a bit of vignette) already.

Before:


Holga-fake-original-image
by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr

After:


Holga-fake-converted-image
by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr

I think it's a reasonable facsimile of what I might get from my Holga. Not perfect, but not bad. Took me about 25 minutes and would probably take less time were I to try again given I know some of the techniques I used now.

I'd still rather use my actual Holga when I'm after an image like this though. :)
Pretty good Nige, it would convince me although because I know it's originally digital there is still something about the presence and clarity of the centre of the image that doesn't quite ring true, but then you might just have a good "copy" of a holga lens and used a slow film :)
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
11,110
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
By that same rationale, Humans see in colour yet I assume you are happy to see images presented in black and white? As long as they are razor sharp, of course? Or would you dismiss anything presented in anything other than colour because that's how we see the world?

The whole fact that we now, as photogrpahers largely judge images by their sharpness above content, feeling, moment, engagement is ridiculous. Perhaps I (and we all) should disregard any of the books I have on the shelf have anything other than sharp images in them. You see, young people who are easily influenced (like I was in my 20s) by 'experienced' photographers on forums or camera clubs could so easily be dissuaded from a creative and artistic life by comments about the 'rules of photography' (another thread that's hitting the top of the page currently) and be driven to produce trite, boring photogrpahs that are perfectly razor sharp and on a third and....yawn. Use the cameras you love, make the images you love, shoot the things you love. Only then will you produce authentic imagery that will attract attention from people who actually matter. And let's be honest, as much as we all say that we do this for ourselves, peer recognition and praise is nice to hear, particularly if someone wants to make a living from it.
Good post but think you misinterpret my view erm humans do accept B\W as sometime that's all you see, as for shots today being fuzzy..I (or anyone else) doesn't have to like them and it's all about what turns you on for photographer and viewer.
 
D

Deleted member 21335

Guest
Good post but think you misinterpret my view erm humans do accept B\W as sometime that's all you see, as for shots today being fuzzy..I (or anyone else) doesn't have to like them and it's all about what turns you on for photographer and viewer.
Not sure I misinterpreted anything?

And I didn't say anyone HAS to like them. Like anything photograsphic, it is and will always be subjective.

It's just another forum thread that reinforces why the better photographers, the ones who dared to do things different, the ones who wanted more than discussion about technicalities and actually wanted to learn photogrpahy have long since moved on and produce great images or run their own businesses in photgraphy. I only hang around for the F&C section these days as it has introduced me to some wonderful people.

One things for sure, though. If I were in duscussions with any young, aspiring photogrpahers who wanted to make a living out of it or just do it for personal fulfillment and they asked me for one tip, I would tell them to stay off the forums.
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
11,110
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
One things for sure, though. If I were in duscussions with any young, aspiring photogrpahers who wanted to make a living out of it or just do it for personal fulfillment and they asked me for one tip, I would tell them to stay off the forums.
HUH! So you think there isn't anything on the site Talkphotography that a beginner, young or old could learn or copy etc...... :rolleyes:
Maybe you mean any person that is very successful in business as a photographer wouldn't have the time for forums?
 

Woodsy

POTY Winner 2009
Messages
7,736
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
No, I believe he means that people with narrow minded opinions on what constitute a decent photograph are likely the overly vocal minority, and whose views could have a detrimental effect on aspiring people in the form of equally narrow minded opinions, thereby perpetuating the false notion that sharpness or technicality come before artistic expression.
 
Messages
3,344
Edit My Images
No
The whole fact that we now, as photogrpahers largely judge images by their sharpness...
I think that statement needs to be qualified as to who "we" is meant to include.
No, I believe he means that people with narrow minded opinions on what constitute a decent photograph are likely the overly vocal minority
:plus1:
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
11,110
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
No, I believe he means that people with narrow minded opinions on what constitute a decent photograph are likely the overly vocal minority, and whose views could have a detrimental effect on aspiring people in the form of equally narrow minded opinions, thereby perpetuating the false notion that sharpness or technicality come before artistic expression.
Well that's ridiculous otherwise all shots here would be sharp and clear, why should anyone esp a beginner follow\comply to a view from me (or anyone else) when there are shots shown here from all sorts of film cameras and they can see and judge for themselves what cameras to use and how that want their shots to look.
Same goes for the digi forums use a mobile or Sony7 AII... does anyone get persuaded what is better for them.
 

Woodsy

POTY Winner 2009
Messages
7,736
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
The problem is, yes they do. That this is even a reality is a problem and a shame, but also, that you can't see that it's real from all the way up their on your pedestal is also part of the problem, I feel.
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
11,110
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
The problem is, yes they do. That this is even a reality is a problem and a shame, but also, that you can't see that it's real from all the way up their on your pedestal is also part of the problem, I feel.
erm well I didn't think that I was so important :D so if I said "fuzzy shots are great" everyone would start using pinholes and Holgas ;)...Anyway I can't see what the argument is all about as I've posted "what turns you on" and "horses for courses" and "I don't have to like a fuzzzy shot" and probably a few more.
 
D

Deleted member 21335

Guest
HUH! So you think there isn't anything on the site Talkphotography that a beginner, young or old could learn or copy etc...... :rolleyes:
Maybe you mean any person that is very successful in business as a photographer wouldn't have the time for forums?
No, I believe he means that people with narrow minded opinions on what constitute a decent photograph are likely the overly vocal minority, and whose views could have a detrimental effect on aspiring people in the form of equally narrow minded opinions, thereby perpetuating the false notion that sharpness or technicality come before artistic expression.
I believe Woodsy has answered that much more eloquently than I could have managed.

I think that statement needs to be qualified as to who "we" is meant to include.
:plus1:
Apologies, a bit of a sweeping statement I must admit. I certainly don't classify myself in that and of course not everyone, however you must admit it is largely the consensus out there in internet land.
 
D

Deleted member 49428

Guest
Only humans have the "luxury" to except something fuzzy etc and call it art or whatever, It does seem odd to me that nature took millions of years to perfect our eyes, but today some people turn a subject into something looking fuzzy, but I don't mind\like shots with poorer lenses\equipment used in the past as that was the way it was, and do give some likes for shots produced here for Holgas and pinholes shots as I appreciate the effort\achievement in producing a shot with that equipment.
Anyway whatever turns you on and hope my eyes don't deteriorate to Holga lenses and don't have to buy another tv because it's starting to look like Holga shots ;)
Our eyes are actually pretty poor in terms of sharpness especially a bit away from the center of vision. And we see in B&W at night. The brain however does an amazing job "correcting" the flaws og the lenses.
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
11,110
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
I believe Woodsy has answered that much more eloquently than I could have managed.



Apologies, a bit of a sweeping statement I must admit. I certainly don't classify myself in that and of course not everyone, however you must admit it is largely the consensus out there in internet land.
Well Gareth you have to practice what you preach..correct me if I'm wrong but you now take shots using a Leica and some very good MF gear and can't remember you using a pinhole or Holga, well maybe in the past in the old days.
 

Woodsy

POTY Winner 2009
Messages
7,736
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
Urgh. He, nor anyone else (apart from perhaps that eejit who was banned), is saying that sharpness should be avoided for a photograph to meet the artistic objective! If sharpness is maintained by using [what you would term as] good kit, then so be it. The whole argument is that sharpness is not a prerequisite of a good photograph, and that if the kit that provides a good degree of image sharpness best facilitates the artistic objective, then so be it!

For the love of (well... science, in my case), I'd bet good money that you intentionally misunderstand the point just to perpetuate the argument.
 
D

Deleted member 21335

Guest
Well Gareth you have to practice what you preach..correct me if I'm wrong but you now take shots using a Leica and some very good MF gear and can't remember you using a pinhole or Holga, well maybe in the past in the old days.
I don't have to shoot Holga myself to appreciate it or reinfore my previous statment of , "Use the cameras you love, make the images you love, shoot the things you love"
I have considered one recently though, I must admit. As for what i shoot now, yes I use Leica and a couple of nice MF outfits but I also shoot quite a lot of Polaroid film though a couple of SX-70 cameras and have a couple of hundred of them in a show box and around the house. That lo-fi enough for ya? :D

This discussion goes far beyond the lo-fi camear, though. People produce beautiful OOF, blurry, grainy, technically flawed (whatever that means) imagery with the best gear, film and digital. This is more about not being dismissive of something because it is not what we find pleasing. There's room for all of it.

I like tattoos as an analogy. There are so many different styles out there. Lots done well but not all would I have on my body. It doesn't stop me loving the work or admiring the artist, I just don't like it for me.
 
D

Deleted member 21335

Guest
Urgh. He, nor anyone else (apart from perhaps that eejit who was banned), is saying that sharpness should be avoided for a photograph to meet the artistic objective! If sharpness is maintained by using [what you would term as] good kit, then so be it. The whole argument is that sharpness is not a prerequisite of a good photograph, and that if the kit that provides a good degree of image sharpness best facilitates the artistic objective, then so be it!

For the love of (well... science, in my case), I'd bet good money that you intentionally misunderstand the point just to perpetuate the argument.
Once again, better than I can find the words for. Thanks
 

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
11,110
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Our eyes are actually pretty poor in terms of sharpness especially a bit away from the center of vision. And we see in B&W at night. The brain however does an amazing job "correcting" the flaws og the lenses.
Well compared to an eagle etc but humans have succeded with the eyes we have and I'm amazed how some people in the past (and probably today) had made tiny intricate things without any sort of optical magnification. So the sharpness of human eyes must good or good enough.
 
Messages
5,107
Name
Nige
Edit My Images
No
Well compared to an eagle etc but humans have succeded with the eyes we have and I'm amazed how some people in the past (and probably today) had made tiny intricate things without any sort of optical magnification. So the sharpness of human eyes must good or good enough.
Illustration of image as 'seen' by the retina independent of optic nerve and striate cortex processing:


It's your brain that does most of the work, processing the scene as your eye scans over it so you see a full in-focus view of the scene.

You can see it in action by focusing on an object in front of you and then, without moving your eyes, you should notice that all the items in the periphery are not in focus at all.

That doesn't detract from what you've said though. The human eye is amazing and certainly good enough for us to do amazing things.
 
Last edited:

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
11,110
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
For the love of (well... science, in my case), I'd bet good money that you intentionally misunderstand the point just to perpetuate the argument.
I'm out of this nonsense...you don't accept that I've said "whatever turns you on" and "horse for courses" etc etc and does it matter if my view is "I like sharp prints but appreciate the effort in people using pinholes and Holgas etc " it's not for me so what's the argument, if beginners want to follow\agree with me then they don't have a mind of their own esp with all the shots produced here from different film cameras.
G'day
 
D

Deleted member 49428

Guest
Illustration of image as 'seen' by the retina independent of optic nerve and striate cortex processing:


It's your brain that does most of the work, processing the scene as your eye scans over it so you see a full in-focus view of the scene.

You can see it in action by focusing on an object in front of you and then, without moving your eyes, you should notice that all the items in the periphery are not in focus at all.

That doesn't detract from what you've said though. The human eye is amazing and certainly good enough for us to do amazing things.
Yes the human eye is good but far from perfect both optically and in low light performance.
Its a trade off as with All our senses. Imagine the brain capacity needed they were not.
Arh thats why I like Holga images so much :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Messages
90
Edit My Images
No
One things for sure, though. If I were in duscussions with any young, aspiring photogrpahers who wanted to make a living out of it or just do it for personal fulfillment and they asked me for one tip, I would tell them to stay off the forums.
As someone who probably belongs to your age group (judging from your avatar), I've been cheering for you through and through in this (very odd) thread because I agree with you on 99% of what you say.

Not sure I agree completely with the above, though. I've learnt a lot on forums. I still find forums useful and would recommend my 20 years old self to browse through some of them. The reason why I'd still recommend them is because film photography forums seem to be populated mostly by (apologies do not mean to offend anyone) 'senior' film photographers. So there's a lot of signal amongst the noise, and if you filter out threads oozing with that typical old man-style stubbornness of the kind 'I DON'T LIKE THIS! WHY WOULD ANYONE ELSE DO IT?? BACK IN MY DAYS WE DID IT BLABLABLA" you'll find precious technical advice on film photography, darkroom set up and usage, chemicals, and so on and so forth. PHOTRIO is a lot like this. 60% grumpy Yankee Tri-X/D76 fanboy boomer, 40% great content.

Personally, if budding film photographers asked me for a tip, I would tell them to stay off blogs and 'review' sites, instead. Way more dangerous than forums imho, and mostly useless. The fact some random guy with a cursory interest in film photography goes ahead and shoots 1 roll of one film, with no experience, no understanding of the medium, poor photographic skills, poor scanning skills, and many times inexistent artistic skills - and still gets a top google hit thus making or breaking the fortune of the camera/film/chemical they decided to 'review' - this I think is absurd.
 
D

Deleted member 21335

Guest
As someone who probably belongs to your age group (judging from your avatar), I've been cheering for you through and through in this (very odd) thread because I agree with you on 99% of what you say.

Not sure I agree completely with the above, though. I've learnt a lot on forums. I still find forums useful and would recommend my 20 years old self to browse through some of them. The reason why I'd still recommend them is because film photography forums seem to be populated mostly by (apologies do not mean to offend anyone) 'senior' film photographers. So there's a lot of signal amongst the noise, and if you filter out threads oozing with that typical old man-style stubbornness of the kind 'I DON'T LIKE THIS! WHY WOULD ANYONE ELSE DO IT?? BACK IN MY DAYS WE DID IT BLABLABLA" you'll find precious technical advice on film photography, darkroom set up and usage, chemicals, and so on and so forth. PHOTRIO is a lot like this. 60% grumpy Yankee Tri-X/D76 fanboy boomer, 40% great content.

Personally, if budding film photographers asked me for a tip, I would tell them to stay off blogs and 'review' sites, instead. Way more dangerous than forums imho, and mostly useless. The fact some random guy with a cursory interest in film photography goes ahead and shoots 1 roll of one film, with no experience, no understanding of the medium, poor photographic skills, poor scanning skills, and many times inexistent artistic skills - and still gets a top google hit thus making or breaking the fortune of the camera/film/chemical they decided to 'review' - this I think is absurd.
Yeah I can't argue with you there.

Personally, I have made some friends from forums and made some great contacts on here of whom I have lent and borrowed various gear as well as shared some useful insights, so perhaps stay off isn't 100% accurate as yes, there is some valuable information out there, but it can also be a creative cancer at times.

Also, I appreciate the kind words, thank you. It's often hard to post your thoughts without them sounding like sweeping statements unfortunately when it's not always meant that way.
 
OP
BADGER.BRAD
Messages
1,428
Name
Brad
Edit My Images
Yes
Retune, your man on the moon is taking it too far everyone knows the Moon landings were faked at the end of the sixties and the Holga apeared in the 80's !
 
Last edited:
OP
BADGER.BRAD
Messages
1,428
Name
Brad
Edit My Images
Yes
O.k Retune I take my comment back, would that same balloon method be any good for getting rid of troublesome wives that don't like cameras ?
 
Last edited:
Messages
589
Edit My Images
No
It's just another forum thread that reinforces why the better photographers, the ones who dared to do things different, the ones who wanted more than discussion about technicalities and actually wanted to learn photogrpahy have long since moved on and produce great images or run their own businesses in photgraphy.
Fudge know why the internet is so bad at having discussion about photography itself other than gearhead discussions.

Is anyone on any painting forums? Do they just around talking about paints rather than paintings?
 
Messages
5,107
Name
Nige
Edit My Images
No
Pretty good Nige, it would convince me although because I know it's originally digital there is still something about the presence and clarity of the centre of the image that doesn't quite ring true, but then you might just have a good "copy" of a holga lens and used a slow film :)
Yeah, it's definitely not a fully accurate replica. I used a a few layered blurs, one of which was a zoom-blur. It looks ok at first glance, but it's not the same as the blur you get from an actual Holga. I reckon you could get a very good facsimile given enough time and effort should you wish though.
 
Messages
5,107
Name
Nige
Edit My Images
No
Fudge know why the internet is so bad at having discussion about photography itself other than gearhead discussions.

Is anyone on any painting forums? Do they just around talking about paints rather than paintings?
I bet it exists pretty much anywhere there are people with different preferences for a subject. There's probably a chocolate forum where flame wars rage over whether Mars's Fudge-whipper 3000 is better than the Cadbury Choco-Rippler XL where making chocolate bars is concerned. :)
 
Messages
551
Edit My Images
Yes
Fudge know why the internet is so bad at having discussion about photography itself other than gearhead discussions.

Is anyone on any painting forums? Do they just around talking about paints rather than paintings?
I hang out on https://www.wetcanvas.com/, which is probably the biggest painting forum. It covers all media (oils, acrylics, watercolours, pencils, printmaking, etc). The users discuss both paintings and paints.

Some types of media can be quite technical, and using paints without following appropriate guidelines can lead to issues later (eg, deterioration of the paint surface), so there is a fair amount of discussion of methods and techniques, and the chemistry within the paints and the mediums they're mixed with. There is some discussion of the gear (brushes, surfaces, easels, etc), but that's mostly about build quality and what they're like to use. Development of new gear doesn't happen much because the overall activity and technology is very mature (oil painting has been around for at least six centuries - there are only so many ways you can knock some bits of wood together to make an easel).

There is very little advocacy of particular types of paint over others - there might be some debate/adovcacy within a paint type, such as traditional oils and water mixable oils, but I don't think I've ever seen anything like a watercolour painter coming into an oil painting section and telling people that oil paints are crap and they should be doing watercolours. That would be bizarre. People would wonder if the watercolourist was alright in the head. By and large, people use what they like to use and nobody gives a monkeys what somebody else uses.

As for discussing paintings, there seems to be plenty of discussion of both famous paintings, and of the works of forum members. All the usual stuff that might be seen in discussion of photographs, such as composition, colour, tone, what the image might convey or 'mean', etc. For member paintings, often advice and critique.

I have to say, the notion that photographs are supposed to be sharp seems to me to be rather out of date. The art world was on its way to binning that sort of thing about two centuries ago. Turner started as a fairly conventional Academy painter in the late 1790s, and had become more and more fuzzy by the 1830s. He in turn influenced the impressionists (Monet studied his works) who experienced some resistance at first, but were accepted by the time Van Gogh and others were being influenced by them around the 1880s. By then, modern art was in full swing and the technical stranglehold of the academies was well and truly binned in the sense that it was no longer an imperative.

In photography, people can be incredibly narrow-minded when it comes to things like the equipment used to make photographs, or what photographs are supposed to look like. Van Gogh died 10 years before Kodak democratised photography with the box Brownie. By the time the masses were handed cameras, art had already dumped any notion that striving for technical perfection was the de facto and required approach. And yet, here we are, 120 years later, and we have gear advocates derailing threads with unwelcome opinions, and people slagging off images because they don't reach some arbitrary technical standard.

I sometimes find the photography scene very parochial. There are people who really could benefit from stepping outside the world of cameras and take in the wider context of image-making that has been going on for centuries.
 
Last edited:

sirch

Official Forum Numpty 2015,FPOTY 2020
Messages
10,259
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Fudge know why the internet is so bad at having discussion about photography itself other than gearhead discussions.

Is anyone on any painting forums? Do they just around talking about paints rather than paintings?
My daughter does lino cuts and a lot of people in the lino cut community are definitely about the best inks, lino and gear rather than the prints themselves
 
Messages
6,751
Edit My Images
Yes
The sharpness thing makes me smile; sharpness in itself does not guarantee a good photo and, conversely, a soft or blurry image does not in itself make a good artistic photograph... all that's blurry and gloomy is not art! I think more people need to realise this.

To me, the Holga thing is a bit like the Polaroid SX70/1000/Button camera thing. The camera gives a certain look, which can be used to compliment a scene and produce a photo that has a nostalgic or artistic look to it. This is all well and good until it gets overused, then it becomes about as passé and annoying as a novelty hit in the music charts!

I was given a Polaroid 1000 for Christmas when I was about 12, it was a fantastic novelty to see your photos develop while you looked at them (which you could do with the original Polaroid film), but I quickly found the limitations of the camera and got bored with the slightly un-sharp pastel shades and was soon pining for a 'proper' camera (a 35mm SLR). Don't get me wrong, I still take the occasional Polaroid photo and enjoy trying to match the 'look' to the scene, but it's a novelty trick I soon get tired of.
 
Last edited:
Messages
17,204
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
The Holga thing slightly puzzles me, because there's obviously a perception of what it's doing that doesn't seem to necessarily match reality. So for example @FishyFish presented this image as taken with a Holga:

with my Holga 120N (60mm lens & Ilford HP5+)
The image has plenty of clean detail with a pleasing vignette (less than I've seen many Holgas produce) and is an attractive vintage-style image. In many ways it looks like " digital photo with a vignette and edge blur". Yet the example that was produced to look like a fake Holga is jarringly nothing like it:

After:


Holga-fake-converted-image
by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr

I think it's a reasonable facsimile of what I might get from my Holga. Not perfect, but not bad.
So I wonder if the Holga effect isn't more about what people are seeing inside their heads rather than the actual images produced?

Polaroid has been touched on too. *To me* it's like using a fuzz pedal or a fisheye lens - in the right place it works well, but the effect is so extreme that it's incredibly easy to over-use.
 
Last edited:

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
11,110
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
The sharpness thing makes me smile; sharpness in itself does not guarantee a good photo and, conversely, a soft or blurry image does not in itself make a good artistic photograph... all that's blurry and gloomy is not art! I think more people need to realise this.

To me, the Holga thing is a bit like the Polaroid SX70/1000/Button camera thing. The camera gives a certain look, which can be used to compliment a scene and produce a photo that has a nostalgic or artistic look to it. This is all well and good until it gets overused, then it becomes about as passé and annoying as a novelty hit in the music charts!

I was given a Polaroid 1000 for Christmas when I was about 12, it was a fantastic novelty to see your photos develop while you looked at them (which you could do with the original Polaroid film), but I quickly found the limitations of the camera and got bored with the slightly un-sharp pastel shades and was soon pining for a 'proper' camera (a 35mm SLR). Don't get me wrong, I still take the occasional Polaroid photo and enjoy trying to match the 'look' to the scene, but it's a novelty trick I soon get tired of.
Sensible post from a logical mind (y)
 
Messages
6,751
Edit My Images
Yes
Sensible post from a logical mind (y)
Thanks for the compliment. I think that's the thing with photography, it tends to get over-analysed. As the old Croft Original sherry advert used to say "One instinctively knows when something is right". How 'what is right' is actually achieved is a different matter though; putting that process into words, in the hope that everybody can consistently achieve that, is a fool's errand! I think the words of the poet Robert Browning probably sum things up;

"That's the wise thrush; he sings each song twice over,
Lest you should think he never could recapture
The first fine careless rapture!"

What counts is whether or not you can replicate the combination of look, feel and mood. Clinically recreating just the physical characteristics isn't enough, it goes much deeper than that, it must capture the soul. Simply buying the kit capable of giving the look is not enough, it runs much deeper than that.
 
Last edited:

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
11,110
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
Thanks for the compliment. I think that's the thing with photography, it tends to get over-analysed. As the old Croft Original sherry advert used to say "One instinctively knows when something is right". How 'what is right' is actually achieved is a different matter though; putting that process into words, in the hope that everybody can consistently achieve that, is a fool's errand! I think the words of the poet Robert Browning probably sum things up;

"That's the wise thrush; he sings each song twice over,
Lest you should think he never could recapture
The first fine careless rapture!"

What counts is whether or not you can replicate the combination of look, feel and mood. Clinically recreating just the physical characteristics isn't enough, it goes much deeper than that, it must capture the soul. Simply buying the kit capable of giving the look is not enough, it runs much deeper than that.
Other than "what turns you on" it's all about logical thought and psychology...all the posts (views) here would make no difference to a beginner (or anyone else) with a creative mind and to suggest any post could influence that person is ludicrous. Mind you photography has been going for about 150 years and every type of photography (ideas\style etc) must has been thought of, so to find a niche for your creative abilties would be difficult unless you copy from other photographers....well at least to start.
And the reason I liked your post was reminding us that (in my words) a bad shot is a bad shot no matter if you used a Leica or a Holga, but obviously if the photographer likes his\her shot there is no argument, but if open to others to view..................................
 
Top