Is there a famous photographer using a holga?

[darkosaric]

he uses Holga AND Hasselblad - it depends....

I know. I have seen holga prints on his flickr - superb!

 

[Larry H-L]

Commercial photographer Pauline St. Denis is known for her plastic camera work.
http://www.paulinestdenis.com/

 

[nicholai]

I love my Dianas. I use them much more often than my Holgas.

Even though i have several different Dianas, i find myself using my Holga the most. Part of this is due to the awkward focus on the Diana, i guess.

 

[Shootar401]

Using a plastic toy camera?

I'd say there are NO pro's out there that would lower themselves to using that.

 

[marenmcgowan]

Using a plastic toy camera?

I'd say there are NO pro's out there that would lower themselves to using that.

Wow...that is so sad you think that. I've seen some truly beautiful work with Holgas. The pros know how to use the flaws of the Holga to an advantage... I just bought one and I'm having a blast with it. I definitely plan to use at weddings this season to create some cool, arty images for my brides and grooms.

 

[eddie]

Using a plastic toy camera?

I'd say there are NO pro's out there that would lower themselves to using that.

You're joking, right?

 

[StoneNYC]

Using a plastic toy camera?

I'd say there are NO pro's out there that would lower themselves to using that.

I joke about holga a but even I know that's not entirely true...


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alan Johnson]

Well there is an opportunity for a landscape photographer as the 35mm panoramic Holga has only been out for a year:
Dead Link Removed

 

[gandolfi]

Using a plastic toy camera?

I'd say there are NO pro's out there that would lower themselves to using that.

I've earned money taking images exclusivly with Diana camera... (the money part makes me a pro (?))

Annette Fournet has made the most beautiful images using Diana camera for many many years...

 

[removed account4]

its the difference between a camera that has personality than some sort of clinical "masterpiece" ... not to say that every image made by a
lo-fi camera is good, but that is the same for all the crapola being made by hassys, high end nikons, and ebonys with a schnieider xl ...

but YMMV ov course ...

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Using a plastic toy camera?

I'd say there are NO pro's out there that would lower themselves to using that.

Magnum photographer Antoine D'agata comes to my mind right away... And many others

 

[eddie]

I think pros that shoot Holgas/Dianas do so because they're confident in their visual skills. They can't rely on technology with the cameras, and image making is reduced to its purest form- just seeing.

 

[winger]

The photographer's eye and brain are the important parts - the camera is just a tool. The results are predictable once you've run a roll or two through a new one (I have two and they aren't the same). You just have to know what scene and what lighting will work. And for some reason, Holga shots frequently work well on lith (see gallery here for examples, there are many from others way better than I).
Of course there are pros using Holgas. If we know their names is up to their marketing. Whether a print sells to people other than other photographers is entirely due to the results, not the camera. A buyer doesn't usually say, "I will/won't buy that because they didn't use X camera."

At least one of mine is quite sharp in the middle (or can be), but it's nicely OOF at the edges (barn shot shows it well). And, yes, I have a Hasselblad and I use it for different results.

If you're going to drive off-road, you take the Durango, not the Mustang. When the need for speed kicks in, you want the Mustang. It's all about having the right tool for the job at the right time.

 

[eddie]

Go to the Gallery and look at jbridges' work with a Holga.

 

[250swb]

its the difference between a camera that has personality than some sort of clinical "masterpiece" ... not to say that every image made by a
lo-fi camera is good, but that is the same for all the crapola being made by hassys, high end nikons, and ebonys with a schnieider xl ...

but YMMV ov course ...

I couldn't agree more. I'd far rather look at a fuzzy and exciting photograph than a perfect 'demonstration' photograph from the sharp and boring school.

But two conditions should apply. The first being that the photographer able to make the fuzzy image exciting should be able to make any other camera produce an exciting image. The second that those who like to demonstrate sharpness should aspire to make an image that is sharp and exciting.

Too many photographers find a comfortable niche and fail to stretch themselves or court disapproval, but the Lomo movement has shown that photography can be exciting, now those photographers need to broaden their language. And with a lot of them being young and open to ideas, a lot are now broadening their photographic language and technique. And visa versa, some of those photographers intent on using convention above all else should broaden their outlook and ask themselves 'who am I trying to impress if my photographs send people to sleep?'

Steve

 

[Noble]

And of course so much of the 'art' work from the late 1800s and early 1900s had many of the qualities of Holga work.

Well that explains why even though Ansel Adams was using an 8x10 view camera and careful technique he initially had a hard time convincing people what he was doing was serious art.

I thought I saw a comparison on here between a Hasselblad and a Holga actually, and the guy was saying that the center of the image from the Holga was as sharp as the Hasselblad

There are two schools of lying. I'm of the school that the lie should be pretty plausible because it lowers people's defenses and makes them more likely to accept what you are saying without doing their own due diligence. And of course there is the other end of the spectrum, the Joseph Goebbels school of propaganda. Joseph Goebbels said if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

By Hasselblad I assume you mean the normal 80mm Zeiss Planar. That lens particularly in the center is sharper than the majority of medium format lenses I've seen it go head to head with. The probability that ANY medium format lens picked at random is sharper is low. I mean if you are going to tell a whopper why pick that lens?

Using a plastic toy camera?

I'd say there are NO pro's out there that would lower themselves to using that.

Go to the MoMA and look at the photographic "art." If you look at what is on display there and don't come away thinking anything is possible then I don't know what to say. A famous photographer peed in a jar, took a picture of it, and called it "art." A Pro using a Holga is no where near the wackiest or frankly most stomach churning thing I've ever seen. A pro using a Holga for a particular application to express their artistic vision seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Frankly I don't really have an issue with pros picking and choosing reasonable tools to express their artistic vision. It's just the marketing of crappy cameras to the masses at exorbitant prices and telling them this is what film cameras are about is what rubs me the wrong way.

 

[Noble]

its the difference between a camera that has personality than some sort of clinical "masterpiece" ... not to say that every image made by a
lo-fi camera is good, but that is the same for all the crapola being made by hassys, high end nikons, and ebonys with a schnieider xl ...

but YMMV ov course ...

Difference of course being with the hassies, et al you can easily eliminate the equipment as being the weak link.

 

[removed account4]

hi noble

most of the time the weak link is the person exposing the materials, not the equipment ...
i think using a plastic camera lens or alleged "sub par" equipment is the least of their worries

 

[Noble]

Unfortunately in the real world you aren't dealing with aggregate numbers. You are dealing with one random amateur who shows you a low quality scan or a cheap 4x6 proof print and then asks you to decipher what went wrong in their work flow. I tell these people that pop up every once in a while to save themselves some money and skip the lomo stuff and just get a good modern electronic camera and a nifty fifty lens. Even with a new nifty fifty such a kit is actually cheaper than a lot of the lomography.com stuff. Canon has SLRs you can just drop DX coded film in and it will set the appropriate ISO. You turn it on and point the camera and it will set the appropriate shutter speed and aperture combination and focus. All with the push of one button. With minimal instruction you can send most amatures out with a kit like that and get back sharp contrasty negatives. Even with non lomo stuff I dissuade people from getting old cameras as their first foray into film. Relatively new stuff is pretty cheap and almost idiot proof. Once people have a clue I tell them to explore. They ask me what camera to buy next and I shrug. Once they have a handle on the basics and are done making frequent dumb mistakes they have to find their own level. But at the early stage I tell them to reduce the variables until they can reliably eliminate operator error as the main cause of screw ups.

 

[removed account4]

the OP was asking about famous people / professionals.
i think famous people and professionals who use HOLGAS
and other cameras like it are relatively competent photographers ...
and if they aren't ... who cares ?

It's just the marketing of crappy cameras to the masses at exorbitant prices and telling them this is what film cameras are about is what rubs me the wrong way.

kodak did this for decades
agfa and argus ( and everyone else too ) ...whats the difference ?

 

[horacekenneth]

There are two schools of lying. I'm of the school that the lie should be pretty plausible because it lowers people's defenses and makes them more likely to accept what you are saying without doing their own due diligence.

Huh. Okay.

I remember this thread too from a while back. It's possible that my memory transposed some hasselblad lens onto his canon lenses but I'm pretty sure there is another similar thread out there somewhere with a hasselblad and an actual comparison of the image centers. http://photo.net/alternative-cameras-forum/00U5Ts

A comment in that thread compares rollei and holga but he's probably lying through his teeth too. The nerve of us people.

 

[Noble]

the OP was asking about famous people / professionals.
i think famous people and professionals who use HOLGAS
and other cameras like it are relatively competent photographers ...
and if they aren't ... who cares ?

I believe I addressed that...

Frankly I don't really have an issue with pros picking and choosing reasonable tools to express their artistic vision.

kodak did this for decades
agfa and argus ( and everyone else too ) ...whats the difference ?

The difference is it's 2013. In the 1940's there was no internet, ebay, craigslist, cheap Walmart film send out service, etc. With the collapse in the film market and the rise in consumer spending power, at least relative to the 1940s-1970s, all kinds of vistas have been opened. Why ignore them? In the 1950s I wouldn't be telling people to consider the cheaper better alternative on ebay. There was no alternative. And 60 years from now maybe all the used working equipment will be gone and my advice will be different. I don't know.

Besides Kodak has done some marketing things in the past that I was critical of and no one thought it was odd that I criticized them. To me they are just corporate entities. A critical comment about one of their departments isn't going to bother me.

Huh. Okay.

I remember this thread too from a while back. It's possible that my memory transposed some hasselblad lens onto his canon lenses but I'm pretty sure there is another similar thread out there somewhere with a hasselblad and an actual comparison of the image centers. http://photo.net/alternative-cameras-forum/00U5Ts

A comment in that thread compares rollei and holga but he's probably lying through his teeth too. The nerve of us people.

The link I provided shows objectively that Rollei made some cameras that are not the top of the sharpness leader board. So I'm not sure why you would say the guy is "probably lying through his teeth." Frankly I steer clear of Rollei TLRs because there are so many of them and I simply don't have the time to figure out which ones are worth chasing and which ones are really a good deal.

Anyway even with my link I was to a degree just trusting the guy's methodology since I have no inclination to gather a bunch of lenses and test them. He himself even admits with one lens he feels he made a testing error because the numbers a so bad. But his methodology is better than looking at a bunch of small images. Looking at shrunken images on the internet is not the way to determine lens sharpness nor compare sharpness across various lenses. I did not purchase a Zeiss lens based upon some shrunken sharpened images on the internet. Frankly particularly with marque names like Zeiss I am especially careful not to fall prey to the unscientific things said about them on the internet. I own a couple of Zeiss lenses and while they are nice I don't really see this amazing magical quality some people say they have.

 

[removed account4]

in the end it doesn't really matter does it ?
if someone wants to use a holga they will and if someone wants to use something else, they will ..