Here's one of the shots from the first roll I ran through my "new" Diana clone (named a Stellar). It was developed in TD-16, and I fitted a yellow filter to the lens. The camera is a lot smaller and flimsier than my Holga, but has more features, and I like the 4x4 configuration. The viewfinder tends to cut things off at the top though.
Unlike the Holga, this one is actually sharp at infinity. Too sharp. Back to the Holga, this one takes photos that are too much like a "real" camera.
Don't give up on Dianas. I have about 10 of them. They all deliver different results, some better, some worse (depending on what you're going for). I have about 10 Holgas, too, but prefer the Dianas to do what plastic cameras do best.
I also find toning them to be quite satisfying, emphasizing the old-time look of the poor optics:
Don't give up on Dianas. I have about 10 of them. They all deliver different results, some better, some worse (depending on what you're going for). I have about 10 Holgas, too, but prefer the Dianas to do what plastic cameras do best.
I also find toning them to be quite satisfying, emphasizing the old-time look of the poor optics:
I would submit that the "old time look of poor optics" should really read "Modern look of poor optics."
I've seen images shot with 100-year old cameras/lenses that would knock your socks off. The Holga/Diana is a relatively modern invention, as is the acceptance as "artistic" of the lousy images they produce. And, yes, I've shot and loved them too.
I sold my Diana F+ and got original Diana; F+ was too sharp for me. But from time to time I always buy some "new" cheap cameras - last was some 6x9 folder with nettar lens: wide open is very soft, and stopped to f16 is sharp. It is for sure fun to use cameras that have little or no control
Beautiful, beautiful shot eddie. Good stuff. And you're right, my two cameras do deliver different results. Sample variation in plastic cameras, just imagine!