We had a new instructor who wanted us to buy 4x5s that had too many plastic parts
Tommyknocker. LOLI've been waiting for the Canon owners to post "Nikon" and the Nikon owners to post "Canon" to this thread.
And then to have both of them post "Leica".
I think you are confusing Sylvester Graham with the sanitarium guys. Graham was a 7th day adventist ...I see Keebler graham crackers on the shelf at the local supermarket - which is an ironic twist of history considering Kellogg's origins.
I think you are confusing Sylvester Graham with the sanitarium guys. Graham was a 7th day adventist ...
or perhaps, I've remembered the Kellogg story erroneously.
that's cause that little toy is a "choking hazard"I'll trade you Keebler stuff for Kinder EggsUSA customs confiscate intact Kinder Eggs.
I think you have a very closed-minded view of what a camera is, and what it is capable of achieving.Holga? Manufactured to be crappy (at least for the majority of its life), 90s sham authentic, commoditized, generic whimsy.
There are so many cameras out there, that will give you much more authentic “crap” artistic results
The Holga, Diana, Lubitel etc. are bottled “art” photography for the masses.
Lomo, bless their little hipster hearts for keeping interest in film alive during some difficult years, but could we please steer them in the right direction by voting with our wallets?
The key word is WAS a lot cheaper. At the time of introduction the K1000 made sense because it was significantly less expensive than the others I mentioned. But in the 21st century on the used market it's often more expensive. It may not fetch more money than a Nikon FM but would fetch more than an SRT and even a Pentax KX or KM which are similar but just better.Maybe not tougher than those, but I think the K1000 was a lot cheaper.
are they ?The Holga, Diana, Lubitel etc. are bottled “art” photography for the masses.
Holga? Manufactured to be crappy (at least for the majority of its life), 90s sham authentic, commoditized, generic whimsy.
There are so many cameras out there, that will give you much more authentic “crap” artistic results
The Holga, Diana, Lubitel etc. are bottled “art” photography for the masses.
Lomo, bless their little hipster hearts for keeping interest in film alive during some difficult years, but could we please steer them in the right direction by voting with our wallets?
True, but that's no excuse for being dismissive of the tools, as so many here seem to be.... I realize that people appreciate different aesthetics.
Certainly. It is about the resulting image. Show me the prints.True, but that's no excuse for being dismissive of the tools, as so many here seem to be.
I think every camera is capable of making great images, in the right hands. It's the people who think a certain camera will make them better photographers who are overrated.
This statement is just wrong. If Pete is using a tray to develop his film by inspection, that offers the ultimate in control and consistency.
How’s that?I think you have a very closed-minded view of what a camera is, and what it is capable of achieving.
How’s that?
You could say the same thing about people insisting on Holgas.
How’s that?
You could say the same thing about people insisting on Holgas.
Look, I’m not dismissive of the photos taken with a Holga (of course not).True, but that's no excuse for being dismissive of the tools, as so many here seem to be.
Insisting can be many things. It doesn’t entail exclusiveness if that’s what you think.No one is insisting on Holgas.
For you, maybe, but possibly not for others.The basic Brownie is a better and far more flexible (as in modable and durable) photographic tool.
Same goes for the standard Nettar.
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?