...Toycamera Images require the use of Brain and not Brainlessnes like the society proclaims.
Well-acquainted with the results. Hard core film shooters take 'em for what they are. It's the fashion victim/trendoid/hipster crew that buys them, shoots a few rolls, discovers that film and processing/printing aren't so cheap, bores their friends with small prints, then quits and goes back to their iPhone and Hipstamatic app. The novelty dies quickly.
I don't understand how a simple price alert posting turned into a psychoanalysis of the hipster and his/he affinity towards cameras that some have no regard for.
I find threads such as this one useful, since we are developing a new film product, and it gives us an idea of how well new products might be accepted, and among which groups. A large portion of our "audience" comprises younger people who first started with fun cameras such as Holgas, Dianas etc. They seem to me to be no different than Instamatics and the like from the 1960s, except they are specifically geared toward creative use. I like that sort of marketing, because it brings new people in. Obviously it is working, and I think anybody interested in seeing the industrial mass necessary for film production to be maintained should view it as a positive.
Any photographic material that requires lab service is skating on thin ice--that's where the analogies with Instamatics and the film-only world of '60s stall. Not certain many "fun camera" shooters outside of long-time film junkies are exploring home development as an option. Camera shooters just beginning with Holgas, Dianas, or other lo-fi plastics are not consuming huge quantities of film, probably way short of enough to arrest, much less reverse, the trend in film sales.
Sales="No sales" in retail. They're over-priced hipster bait the hipsters can't afford. Here in Toronto, Holga starter kits go for $70. Who'd buy that when you can get something like Nikon FG+50/1.8E for around the same money?
"Better" is subjective.But the FG and 1.8, capable of giving much better pictures...
"Better" is subjective.
I'm new to APUG so forgive my ignorance. Here is my question.
Why would anyone go on the 'Toy Camera' forum and then put down toy camera users? After all, this is the TOY CAMERA FORUM! For instance, I have not the slightest interest in instant photography. But I would never denigrate anyone wanting to use instant photography to express their vision. A Holga in the right hands (that's not mine) can produce some really interesting work. I've seen photography from all kinds of cameras that I like and from all kinds of cameras I find dull and boring. And I assure all that I am an expert on dull and boring because I have produced enough of it in my own darkroom.
I'm new to APUG so forgive my ignorance. Here is my question.
Why would anyone go on the 'Toy Camera' forum and then put down toy camera users? After all, this is the TOY CAMERA FORUM! For instance, I have not the slightest interest in instant photography. But I would never denigrate anyone wanting to use instant photography to express their vision. A Holga in the right hands (that's not mine) can produce some really interesting work. I've seen photography from all kinds of cameras that I like and from all kinds of cameras I find dull and boring. And I assure all that I am an expert on dull and boring because I have produced enough of it in my own darkroom.
I'm new to APUG so forgive my ignorance. Here is my question.
Why would anyone go on the 'Toy Camera' forum and then put down toy camera users? After all, this is the TOY CAMERA FORUM! For instance, I have not the slightest interest in instant photography. But I would never denigrate anyone wanting to use instant photography to express their vision. A Holga in the right hands (that's not mine) can produce some really interesting work.
Conversely, one could argue that toy cameras are consuming more 35mm color film, and hence requiring more associated lab services, than any other sector of the amateur market, including legacy camera fondlers.
I don't know if it's the build quality of toy cameras versus legacy cameras (plastic vs. metal), or a generational divide ("them young 'uns"), that gets people's hackles up. Seems kind of hypocritical to be circling the film wagons against the onslaught of digital photography while leaving our plastic-bodied camera fans out in the cold just because they don't pass some arbitrary quality standard.
I like the marketing model of Lomo, especially with the new LomoKino. It's sure to create a bigger demand for color photo processing. And as an aside, I don't see the necessity to use exclusively Lomo-branded film in a Lomo camera. I find the 4-packs of el-cheapo Kodak or Fuji film works fine, and is purchased locally.
Another factlette: I get many digital-camera-captured images printed at local photo lab on RA-4 paper also. So I don't see a direct connection between such labs and the decline of film photography.
As long as outfits like Lomo and Holga and their ilk are manufacturing newly-designed film cameras (which they are), I'm all for them. I sure as hell don't see Canikon, et al, marketing newly-designed, high-build-quality film cameras. Put up or shut up.
~Joe
We've been through this so many times recently.
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?