Diana, Lomography for art; Puh-leez. They have some cache for creativity for some reason. Gimmicks. All they produce are artifacts you cannot control so art becomes a coin-toss.
....I drift to the less expensive cameras that work, so Spotmatic-F and a few good lenses is ideal.
I'm not sure; never used any cheap equipment.Where can one get that?I all seems expensive to me.Hi,
So first of all - I don't want to discuss technical component, this is more about artistic results.
I have no clear evidence, it is just my gut feeling...when I take photos with expensive cameras and expensive films, in comparison to some cheap camera and cheap film - I think (not sure, I think) I get better artistic results. For example on one side Nikon F or Leica M with expensive TriX, vs some plastic zoom point and shoot with expired 1€ Polypan F film. As rare exception are sometimes results from Diana F.
Is this makes sense to you guys?
Rembrandt is remembered and loved for his technical mastery and thoughtful ness in use of light and shadow.
Yet try doing something like that with a holga.
Agreed- and not only that, but Rembrandt was not exactly a high-definition painter. Compare his self-portrait:This shows a complete lack of knowledge of what a Holga (or Diana) is capable of. Take a look at Jon Shiu's Lower Falls to see how a plastic camera, in the right hands, can render light and shadow. https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/lower-falls.17720/
This shows a complete lack of knowledge of what a Holga (or Diana) is capable of. Take a look at Jon Shiu's Lower Falls to see how a plastic camera, in the right hands, can render light and shadow. https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/lower-falls.17720/
Agreed- and not only that, but Rembrandt was not exactly a high-definition painter. Compare his self-portrait:
To say, a Bronzino portrait:
I think Rembrandt would have been hot and bothered for a Diana or a Holga. Maybe some kind of meniscus lens with lots of aberrations and imperfections.
It is one of my all-time Gallery favorites. Further proof it's the artist, not the tools.Great photograph with the plastic fantastic !
It is one of my all-time Gallery favorites. Further proof it's the artist, not the tools.
Yes- not every photograph needs to look like an Ansel Adams. Nor does every photo need to look like an F. Holland Day. Or an Eggleston.It is one of my all-time Gallery favorites. Further proof it's the artist, not the tools.
"everyone sounds good on a Steinway"
No! The not so good can sound even worse on a Steinway. I have been told by horn players that high end horns are very sensitive and reveal any shortcomings of player. I have a very good concert grade harp but sound lousy.
On the other hand, Fritz Kreisler once lost his Strad and borrowed a fiddle from orchestra player and nobody could notice the difference.
Or this Albrecht Durer self portraitGreat photograph with the plastic fantastic !
A really appropriate comment that looks at the problem from the right side !
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?