I think Holga cameras and their clones, and lots of other photographic tools that similarly deliver non-literal images are so popular because they sometimes lend a symbolic or iconic quality to everyday objects.
To me the Lensbabies and Holgas, Infrared Film, pinholes, litho printing, etc., etc., sometimes can be used to make a subject which might be very literal and plain into something out of one's dreams, fantasies or ideals of those subjects.
A picture of a sailboat on a lake with a normal lens and the sun at high noon might (or might not) be kind of a boring snapshot that might only mean something to the guy who owns the boat. The exact same setting with a Holga or some other alternative technique might take that same subject and make it 'every' sailboat to the viewer. By fuzzying up the details or in some other way allowing the viewer to not get stuck on the specific details of this boat in this image, perhaps it makes it easier to bridge the gap between the viewer's personal experience (what they bring to the image) and what the artist is saying. It makes the sailboat a symbol or an icon.
To me, the Great Photographers somehow manage to do this and still have a very literal photograph. They made these long-standing iconic images that are perfectly sharp and clear. They don't rely on a Holga or unusual film to make something special. They somehow do it with composition, light, subject, editing. I strive for that.
I played with a Holga. I've played with lots of odd techniques. I'm now trying to 'see' with plain eyes and say something that is important to me with plain technique. Hopefully people who see my prints will feel something.
As for Marko. The original post has to come under the heading of a "troll"...it seems to have ONLY been posted to draw attention and spark a silly argument.
Marko, I really thought that when you got spanked so soundly last month, we'd only hear from you when you had something to say. I was wrong.
Too many words Marko.
Neal
