Holga thoughts...

[Silverhead]

Why fret when you can get a Holga so (comparatively) cheaply at Freestyle, B&H, etc.?

 

[beala]

Very true. You can get them fairly cheaply online, but even at $28 + s/h it's still not in quite the same spirit as the $5 salvation army camera. But as I said, I still really like good Holga photos.

 

[McFortner]

I just got a Holga lens for $8 and mated it up to a body cap for my Minolta X-370 and X-9. Why buy a new format (120) when I can make due with 35mm and develop and scan at home?

 

[cgmoyer]

I just got a Holga lens for $8 and mated it up to a body cap for my Minolta X-370 and X-9. Why buy a new format (120) when I can make due with 35mm and develop and scan at home?

When using 35mm film, you are losing most of the Holga lens goodness. The magic happens at the edges of the 120 sized film

 

[Silverhead]

When using 35mm film, you are losing most of the Holga lens goodness. The magic happens at the edges of the 120 sized film

Agreed. You lose almost all of the vignetting and the light leaks.

 

[McFortner]

When using 35mm film, you are losing most of the Holga lens goodness. The magic happens at the edges of the 120 sized film

Agreed. You lose almost all of the vignetting and the light leaks.

True, but I can introduce vignetting by putting a canister cap with a hole in it inside the adapter. In fact, I'm going to try that a little later when I get a chance.

Michael

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Holga can be a plastic gimmick if you want it to be. And, it can be a serious tool if you want it to be.

Some of my best photographs are made with the Holga. Use it as you see fit, but don't discount its qualities because it's inexpensive. Try it on a tripod and a shutter release on bulb setting in low light. If you get it right, it'll knock your socks off.

- Thomas

I know it's a gimmick camera, and i know it's not really legit, but do you have fun shooting with it?

i have a couple of family things coming up and was thinking about picking one up so i can get the hang of 120 film. this way if i mess up in the development phase it won't really be that big of a deal. It's all just for fun, and if something interesting comes out it's a bonus. I'll still have my nikon for real shots.

also, has anyone used ilford 3200 in a holga? i wouldn't mind a little grain to add to the lo-fi effect i'm sure i can expect from the holga.

thanks

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

A dissenting voice...

I have had lots of reliability problems with Dianas, Holgas and Empire Babies. There is nothing worse than having a day's shooting ruined by the camera. A good craftsman never blames his tools ... that's because a good craftsman only uses the best tools he can get.

For the same or less money you can buy a very good Zeiss Nettar / Agfa Isollette / Voigtlander / Rolfix / etc. / etc.

If you are looking for the 'grab shot' look, try using one as you would use a Holga: shoot at f11 @ 1/100th with the lens set at 12, 6 or 3 feet.

You can get the 'vignette & fuzz' look by burning when printing and by enlarging with a suitably crummy enlarging lens. Crummy lenses are easy and fun to make - remove an element from a clunker lens, use a jewlers' loupe, put something horrid in the under-lens-filter-holder.

For the Holga look in a 35mm camera get hold of a Spiratone Portragon or Sima Portrait lens - they pop up on ebay for $25 to $50. These lenses use the same plano-convex lens design used in crappy-cams. Better quality box cameras - Brownies, Imperials, Clacks - use a meniscus lens.

I guess it removes the 'chance' element from the photograph. But if photographing a wedding or commercial shoot I don't really like leaving much to 'chance'.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Nicholas,

To some extent I agree with you, but I also disagree. Some 'shoots' don't have to incorporate reliability. And the four years I've owned my Holga cameras reliability has not once been a problem.

At $20 a piece, you can buy a lot of Holga cameras and bring two every time. I actually have higher success rate with it than my Hasselblad. So in a way, it's a better camera.

Is it a precision tool, like a Rolleiflex? No. Is it reliable? I claim it is. Is it useful? Yes.
For a commercial shooter, it would probably be a disaster to use. For an artist, there is no good reason to NOT use it, unless you dislike the resulting negatives. My (well serviced) 35mm Pentax system failed me twice (once a lens, and once the film winding crank). The Holga kept on working.

Attached photo made with a Holga. To me, I could not have done any better with any other camera.

- Thomas

A dissenting voice...

I have had lots of reliability problems with Dianas, Holgas and Empire Babies. There is nothing worse than having a day's shooting ruined by the camera. A good craftsman never blames his tools ... that's because a good craftsman only uses the best tools he can get.

For the same or less money you can buy a very good Zeiss Nettar / Agfa Isollette / Voigtlander / Rolfix / etc. / etc.

If you are looking for the 'grab shot' look, try using one as you would use a Holga: shoot at f11 @ 1/100th with the lens set at 12, 6 or 3 feet.

You can get the 'vignette & fuzz' look by burning when printing and by enlarging with a suitably crummy enlarging lens. Crummy lenses are easy and fun to make - remove an element from a clunker lens, use a jewlers' loupe, put something horrid in the under-lens-filter-holder.

For the Holga look in a 35mm camera get hold of a Spiratone Portragon or Sima Portrait lens - they pop up on ebay for $25 to $50. These lenses use the same plano-convex lens design used in crappy-cams. Better quality box cameras - Brownies, Imperials, Clacks - use a meniscus lens.

I guess it removes the 'chance' element from the photograph. But if photographing a wedding or commercial shoot I don't really like leaving much to 'chance'.

 

[arealitystudios]

I have had lots of reliability problems with Dianas, Holgas and Empire Babies. There is nothing worse than having a day's shooting ruined by the camera. A good craftsman never blames his tools ... that's because a good craftsman only uses the best tools he can get.

I could not disagree more with that statement. I consider myself a very good craftsman and by no means do I stick to tools widely considered "the best". Instead I use tools that I find appropriate for the job at hand, and sometimes that includes using a Holga.

I bought my first Holga for $20 and strangely it is the one camera that never seems to leave my bag. It is so light that it just makes sense to leave it there with a good role of tri-x loaded in it.

 

[markbarendt]

I've really gone back and forth about getting a Holga.

I know that with a "better" camera I can always distress and manipulate the print and that argument has won the day so far.

The reliability thought isn't an issue as far as I'm concerned either because I'm comfortable with just knowing what's normal for the camera. Case in point, one of my four N90s bodies is pretty rough looking and hangs on occasion, I have to hold the button a hair longer or push once more to get past the problem but otherwise it works as well as the rest. It has never failed to clear and at $25 it's expendable.

As long as I had a backup I'd have no fear of using a Holga I was familiar with at any shoot.

What is so very tempting about a Holga is 1) not having to distress or manipulate the print and 2) the "no safeties" nature of the camera.

Most cameras try to keep me from making mistakes. A Holga, like my 4x5, does not care if I screw up. That comes with risk but allows for lots of creativity.

 

[Krzys]

Holgas are fine but the community/cult surrounding lomography and the company itself are terrible. Fads and capitalism take over. I saw a great mod on flickr of the lens from a door peep hole mounted onto an older camera. It would be great to do this on a Holga.