• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Holga Epiphany

removed-user-1

Just want to share a story...

While I was at school yesterday, a former student of mine who's now taking a darkroom class from another instructor, saw me in the hall and exclaimed how she "hated" the Holga camera she had to use for an assignment.

I asked why she hated it; she said "Because it can't do anything! There's no focus and the exposure settings are a joke!" (Or words to that effect).

She was expecting to see the focus change in the viewfinder.

I quickly explained how to estimate the focus on a scale-focus camera, then I mumbled something reasonably coherent about the importance of composition and learning to work within constraints. So she went off to do her assignment, still unhappy at having to use a "toy" camera.

Later I found her in the darkroom and she had a totally different attitude. She had processed the roll and made some prints, and declared that they looked "like paintings" and was enthralled with the possibilities of "low-fi" photography. A nice moment.
 
Nice indeed! I went through the same, but with 135 format.

And I'm thinking of Lubitel as nice compromise between Holga and Hasselblad.
 
Yes, and unless she tests all her film and paper and draws curves for it all, none of her photos will look any good anyway
 
Ko.Fe. said:
I'm thinking of Lubitel as nice compromise between Holga and Hasselblad.
Click to expand...

The Lubitel surprised me. The lens used wide open is a delightful, swirly bokeh-ish mess, but closed down to f16 or f22, you can get surprisingly sharp, distortion-free results.

At f16 (may have been f22 - I'm not sure):


At f5.6:
 
If you don't want to go full on plastic fantastic then another good inexpensive 6X6 is the Nettar. This little folder with the basic 3 element 75mm f6.3 and a 3 speed + B shutter can sometimes be found for the price of a new Holga 120n and stopped down to 11 or 16 leaves little to be desired in quality.
 
tried

I tried awful hard to be a camera snob back when I owned a Leica M2R but I was never very good at it. One of the favorite photos I ever took (when I was 12 years old) is of a steam locomotive churning out black smoke like there is no tomorrow. Not an easy photo to get without subject movement with a Brownie Reflex with one shutter speed -- slow. But that is what I did. It ain't the box, it's the eye and the noggin. And a roll of 127 film.
 
It's all about managing expectations. Once you use something, whether Holga or Hasselblad, long enough, you learn what you can get from it. Each tool is useful for its own set of jobs. Of my photos, some of my favorites are with my Hasselblad, some with my Holga, and at least one (or many) from each different camera I own.
 

+1
 
rthomas said:
A nice moment.
Click to expand...



Yes, a nice moment indeed - and good to have it so early.

I spent wildly on lenses and whatnot for a couple of years when I started to take photography seriously again, because I really thought all that sh*t about sharpness made a difference ... idiot
 
Where sharpness, contrast, and tonality are integral to the message one is attempting to communicate, those qualities make a huge difference. Where the message either doesn't require those traits, or worse, those traits actively work against the message, then they have no place and should be avoided.

Every difference in photography (as in life) is important and should never be dismissed outright. Except when it isn't, and it should.

The trick is in figuring out what is and what isn't important at any given moment for your message. And because messages and audiences change, it's a constantly moving target that many absolutists at both extremes of the spectrum often have trouble wrapping their heads around.

Ken
 
I agree with winger. Holgas and other lo-fi, plastic-fantastic, toy type cameras do what they do really well. You just have to determine whether their look is what you're wanting or needing. Sometimes it can be freeing to throw a reasonable amount of care to the wind by shooting with a camera with fewer options.
 
paulbarden said:
The Lubitel surprised me. The lens used wide open is a delightful, swirly bokeh-ish mess, but closed down to f16 or f22, you can get surprisingly sharp, distortion-free results.

At f16 (may have been f22 - I'm not sure):


At f5.6:
Click to expand...

I know, I faved and commented at one of yours like second one yesterday.
If calibrated properly it is sharp enough at f8, according to some russian users pictures I have seen.
 
paulbarden said:
The Lubitel surprised me. The lens used wide open is a delightful, swirly bokeh-ish mess, but closed down to f16 or f22, you can get surprisingly sharp, distortion-free results.
Click to expand...
I agree. I love my Lubitel, and I love it wide open for that swirly bokeh (your second image). Focusing it's a beast -- it's still more than 50% luck for me. But when you nail it, it's quite magical.
 

Attachments

  • ce0131.jpg
    110.4 KB · Views: 204
  • enl0044.jpg
    146.5 KB · Views: 191
  • 0029-12.jpg
    172.7 KB · Views: 221
My very first MF camera was a plastic Lubitel. I worked at a professional photographic lab in San Francisco at the time and everyone was sort of pleasantly surprised at the sharpness of the negs I got when the lens was closed down some. Darn gearing of the lenses went off on me while using it in rural Yunnan, China when I lived there for a bit in the mid 90's and eventually became pretty much non-repairable so I tossed it. But it was a great intro to what any lens can do stopped down some and especially what you get from such a nice big neg.
 

Yes, the fact that such a wide range of things is available to us should be seen as a useful feature of the medium, and not a bug. In the end, it's what you make of it that matters. To somewhat paraphrase Duke Ellington, if it looks good, it is good.
 
rthomas said:
She was expecting to see the focus change in the viewfinder.
Click to expand...

Things like this fascinate me. There are those YouTube programs which show kids reacting to film cameras, typewriters, and older computers, and this is amusing because they've never encountered old technology. It's equally charming when someone of college age, who has been exposed to autofocus, autoexposure, live view, and a plethora of other automated features is then presented not only with a camera from an earlier era, but one with simplified controls. It's their expectations that fascinate me.

I'd love to see what she would think of my Exakta VX or Pacemaker Speed Graphic!

rthomas said:
She had processed the roll and made some prints, and declared that they looked "like paintings" and was enthralled with the possibilities of "low-fi" photography. A nice moment.
Click to expand...

I have some SX-70 photos made in Yosemite which have that quality. Later, I scanned them and printed them at 8x10" - they do have a dreamy painting type quality to them which is very pleasing.
 

I'm not sure it's simply new v old tech. I think at times it has to do with people using things they don't understand - they just use them. My mom knows her minivan has anti-lock brakes, she knows the van makes funny noises stopping on the snow, and that the pedal feels funny - but she can't put it all together (even after I've explained it a dozen times).

During my undergrad people had trouble using my cheap point-and-shoot 35mm; their cheap P&S 35mms had motorized advance, and mine had a thumb-wheel. They thought it didn't take a picture because it didn't make the noise afterward, and it was always funny to see their faces as they thought they broke something

I've an old Holga that I'd not used much. I bought it to see if I wanted to invest in medium format or 35mm. It doesn't leak, but has the soft focus. Recently I've been thinking about blowing through some film just to learn how to use that to my advantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register