[Tip] Shooting Blind With Holga 120N Cameras

[John Phive]

Delete

 

[Donald Qualls]

but will have to wait 3 weeks or more to have the film/negatives sent back to me via the Lab.

I might point out that using a digital camera as a preview tool is, strictly speaking, off-topic for the analog-only section of Photrio (what used to be APUG -- Analog Photography Users' Group).

That said, we need to talk to you about developing your own film...

 

[MattKing]

I might point out that using a digital camera as a preview tool is, strictly speaking, off-topic for the analog-only section of Photrio (what used to be APUG -- Analog Photography Users' Group).

Actually it isn't.
But if you start talking about how to take photos with that camera, it is.
And yes, we need to get you developing your film.

 

[awty]

I like the Holga view finder, it gives plenty of riggle room, even when shooting 4.5.

 

[Donald Qualls]

And yes, we need to get you developing your film.

Okay, I stand corrected.

Now about developing your own film. If you aren't backlogged and short on free time like I am, you can do things I've only managed a couple times in my life: shoot, develop, dry the negatives, enlarge or scan, and be ready to share your work, all on the same calendar date.

Processing black and white negatives is inexpensive -- you can buy all the equipment for the processing cost of three or four rolls mailed to a lab, and the ongoing costs are just for chemicals, of which only developer gets used up rapidly (with most workers using developer by diluting the stock solution in the storage bottle, developing one roll or tank of film, and discarding the used developer). With commercial chemicals like R09 or Adonal or even D-76 or ID-11 (probably the most common developers in use today), Kodak Indicator Stop Bath, and any brand of rapid fixer (the latter two of which are reused for several/many rolls) you can process your film for under a dollar a roll and about an hour of working time per tank (and a tank can hold up to about four rolls, depending on film format and tank type/size).

And did I mention no weeks-long wait?

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

I like the Holga view finder, it gives plenty of riggle room, even when shooting 4.5.

Don't know what this post is about since it's been deleted, but just wanted to add on the viewfinder - I have glasses and I've learned that I have to take them off to get the proper framing for the image. Otherwise my eye is too far away from the viewfinder opening and the frame appears "tighter" than it really is. Also with objects at the closest focal distance, there is a slight bit of parallax to deal with but not much.

Jeremy

 

[Donald Qualls]

I may have prompted that deletion of the OP, though I see that I'd been corrected by Matt before @Brokenland deleted the content. In short, it was about using a digital camera as a visualizing aid before shooting with a Holga that has the viewfinder taped over.

Honestly, I'm not sure how that would help unless you have some kind of fixture to ensure the Holga and digital "viewfinder" are seeing the same view -- including some method of masking the digital frame to match the aspect ratio of the Holga (whether 6x6 or 6x4.5, neither will match the horizontal 4:3 or 3:2 or 16:9 of most digital cameras). I don't find the Holga viewfinder problematic, but then I started photography with waist level bright finders on Kodak Duaflex and Brownie Hawkeye Flash cameras, then moved "up" to a Starmite 127 unit with eye level finder for a while before getting my first adjustable camera, a Pony 135 Model C. I've worn glasses longer than I've used any sort of camera, and never found them to be a problem until I got my Super Ikonta B a few years ago.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

I may have prompted that deletion of the OP, though I see that I'd been corrected by Matt before @Brokenland deleted the content. In short, it was about using a digital camera as a visualizing aid before shooting with a Holga that has the viewfinder taped over.

Honestly, I'm not sure how that would help unless you have some kind of fixture to ensure the Holga and digital "viewfinder" are seeing the same view -- including some method of masking the digital frame to match the aspect ratio of the Holga (whether 6x6 or 6x4.5, neither will match the horizontal 4:3 or 3:2 or 16:9 of most digital cameras). I don't find the Holga viewfinder problematic, but then I started photography with waist level bright finders on Kodak Duaflex and Brownie Hawkeye Flash cameras, then moved "up" to a Starmite 127 unit with eye level finder for a while before getting my first adjustable camera, a Pony 135 Model C. I've worn glasses longer than I've used any sort of camera, and never found them to be a problem until I got my Super Ikonta B a few years ago.

That makes more sense. Thanks for the explanation. Not certain why one would tape up the viewfinder of a Holga, but you are correct - trying to simulate the exact view is probably more difficult than its worth.

I wouldn't think that what I stated about the viewfinder was really saying its a problem - just more of a consideration. I've scratched so many glasses by jamming them up against viewfinders that I tend to have them just off the surface of the finder, so that causes the difference more than anything probably. In reality the Holga viewfinder is better than some much more expensive cameras that I've used in the past. My Bessa I comes to mind - the original finder in that thing is so tiny that it gives me a headache just thinking about looking thru it. That's why it has a secondary finder in the hotshoe instead.

Jeremy

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'm inclined to think that a combination of stereotypes and corrective lens technology made this less of a perceived problem before the War. People who couldn't see the scene in the viewfinder without their glasses weren't expected to use cameras of the hand held, eye-level variety (which were still newish technology, having only appeared just before the previous war) -- and with only actual glass to be had for lenses, high prescription glasses for myopia tended to have very small lenses to control the weight on the wearer's nose, and thus could be quite close to the eyes.

Beyond that, people who could afford both glasses and an expensive, new-tech camera (and film to feed it and likely processing) would be those more prone to get custom made correcting lenses for the viewfinders, most of which have been removed and lost or thrown away in the decades since the original owner gave away, stored forever, or sold the camera.

I don't find scratching a major problem with my Super Ikonta -- it's just inconvenient to use because I have to compress glasses and eye against the finder to come close to getting the full frame in view. My other rangefinder cameras are easier in this regard; my Mamiya Six, for instance, has a fairly comfortable finder. My Kiev 4 (two bodies) are significantly easier than I expected them to be, and my Weltini, despite what looks like a tiny viewfinder, isn't a problem (except I can't seem to focus it when held vertical; I just focus horizontal and then rotate the camera). SLRs I own are easy.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

The whole point of a Holga is to keep things simple.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

The whole point of a Holga is to keep things simple.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Well, if simple is your primary goal, there are simpler cameras. Fixed focus lenses, not even two choices of exposure, no flash mount (or nothing that directly mounts a modern flash). Nearly all consumer "Christmas" cameras from the 1950s were in this class. Brownie Hawkeye Flash, Duaflex (each model had a simple version), and so forth (and other brands than Kodak, in 120, 620, and 127). Their spiritual successor is the 35 mm "not quite disposable" camera. Many of these can produce quite good images, and they're as simple to use as any 35 mm camera can get (load, aim, shoot, advance, repeat until film stops, rewind, unload).

They lack some of the appeals of the Holga, of course -- most of the unreliability in terms of light leaks, film scratches, etc., for instance, as well as the aberrations and vignetting that come from covering 6x6 with a lens that's closer to normal for a 4x4 negative. They're often cheaper, however...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Well, if simple is your primary goal, there are simpler cameras. Fixed focus lenses, not even two choices of exposure, no flash mount (or nothing that directly mounts a modern flash). Nearly all consumer "Christmas" cameras from the 1950s were in this class. Brownie Hawkeye Flash, Duaflex (each model had a simple version), and so forth (and other brands than Kodak, in 120, 620, and 127). Their spiritual successor is the 35 mm "not quite disposable" camera. Many of these can produce quite good images, and they're as simple to use as any 35 mm camera can get (load, aim, shoot, advance, repeat until film stops, rewind, unload).

They lack some of the appeals of the Holga, of course -- most of the unreliability in terms of light leaks, film scratches, etc., for instance, as well as the aberrations and vignetting that come from covering 6x6 with a lens that's closer to normal for a 4x4 negative. They're often cheaper, however...

Not my main goal of course ...it's the Holga look that I truly like. In the spirit of Holga though, who needs extraneous stuff (other than a tripod)? Point. Compose. Focus. Shoot.

 

[redrockcoulee]

Not my main goal of course ...it's the Holga look that I truly like. In the spirit of Holga though, who needs extraneous stuff (other than a tripod)? Point. Compose. Focus. Shoot.

its remembering to focus that is my weakness with the Holga.

 

[gone]

Jeremy, this may or may not help you, but if you shoot other cameras besides Holgas, a Nikon N8008s SLR has what they call a high point viewfinder (as well as user replaceable focus screens in different styles). I can see the whole frame even w/ my glasses on with one of those.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

its remembering to focus that is my weakness with the Holga.

Haha ya that took me a while... and to remember to remove the lens cap!

 

[ciniframe]

About mentioning the ‘d’ word. I find my little mirrorless makes a dandy spot meter, and used was cheaper than some spot meters!
Also. Ain’t there a viewfinder app for cell phones?

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

However, I had a concern and contacted the Lab. My concern is that I fear I may not have held the shutter down long enough. Most (if not all of the shots) the shutter was held approx 20 secs. The lab informs me that they will perform a snip test where the lab will take a small sample of the film and determine if it needs to be pushed or pulled.

That's a great lab you are working with there. Most wouldn't have the time to do that.

What film were you shooting? Do you remember what your meter readings were for the shot? Have any filters mounted?

For example, if you were shooting ACROS 100 speed film on a sunny day at the sunny setting, the image would have been more or less exposed properly with the Holga's 1/100th fixed speed. 20 seconds would have been more than 10 stops darker with that film. Were you shooting at night?

Jeremy

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The whole point of starting this conversation was to show a before and after or a comparison shot between the Holga 120N and the Canon M6 (color converted to Black & White) but because I do not have any after shots from the Holga (yet) I've deleted the topic until I actually have some negatives to show for it, which I'll gathering up 4 rolls and sending to the lab this Fri. However, I had a concern and contacted the Lab. My concern is that I fear I may not have held the shutter down long enough. Most (if not all of the shots) the shutter was held approx 20 secs. The lab informs me that they will perform a snip test where the lab will take a small sample of the film and determine if it needs to be pushed or pulled.
Furthermore the image I originally posted was taken with a Canon M6 & 100mm USM lens. This would not have made a good reference image as I should have used the 50mm STM lens as the Holga used a 60mm equivalent.

Actually, the Holga lens is a 60mm actual, which for a 6x6 frame is a rough equivalent to a 35-40mm lens on full frame. I don't know that what you're trying to do is entirely worthwhile, because the two cameras are so different as to be an apples-to-asteroids comparison. The one is a high precision, super-clinical, rectangular frame, the other a super-intuitive, incredibly imprecise camera with a square frame - so no matter your outcome, using the one will not predict the outcome of the other in a satisfying way.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

At the risk of salvaging (hijacking?) this thread, here's a similarly executed subminiature comparison for posterity. Heck, maybe someone will learn something.

I exposed my first cassette of 16mm Tri-X 200 today in an M16ii (23mm, 10x14mm neg) and towed along my J5 (18.5mm, 9x13mm sensor) in B&W O21 jpeg mode. Rating both at 200 ISO, I'd matrix meter & expose the scene digitally then use the same exposure dialed into the film camera. Framing was a bit tighter on film due to the longer focal length, as one might expect. In hindsight, I should have slapped an orange filter on the M16ii as well, but did finish the cassette with a red filter attached.

In this frame I used the tilty screen on the J5 for a waist level exposure then blindly positioned the M16ii around the same height.
Both at f16 1/60s, see if you can tell which is which

Tri-x was souped in D-19 for 7'30" @ 22C and seemed a bit overcooked. Finished the reversal in room light.

f5.6, red filter

Fin.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks for the salvage work. The original thread idea is a good one.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

Nice work. Glad you are sticking with it.

Let me reiterate, Yes a 20 sec exposure can and does work as long as you've mounted a shutter release cable on the camera and mounted the camera to a tripod.

I don't recall anyone here saying a 20 second exposure wouldn't work on a Holga, so there's no need to reiterate.

As you know I shoot long exposures on Holga's frequently with a cable release adapter and ND filter adapter.

The discussion was centered around actually getting the exposure correct.

Glad that you nailed it.

Good luck,

Jeremy

 

[John Phive]

Matt.. thanks for "The original thread idea is a good one" comments, but every time I create a thread, it's based on my experiences while using the Holga 120N camera, then others enter the thread and create havoc.. the Thread ends up going south or not the direction I was looking for. This makes twice you've comments about my threads.. but I end up deleting them because they never end up going to the right direction. It's apparent that I should never create another thread here and just post images.. But hell I can post images on 500px and not have to deal with this bickering or (at times) objectionable comments from those who feel they know it all and about how I do things. matter of fact while on fstoppers, this was posted a few days ago based on this thread about shooting blind.. but they call it head out..

https://fstoppers.com/landscapes/how-often-need-head-out-get-great-images-591203

So if those reading could over look their egos and read my comments in full instead of every 5th word.. others might learn something about how to use the Holga. Seems their mind set is devoted to holgas aren't worth the effort.. i think it is and will continue to modify the camera to suit my needs.

I think I've been doing very well with my Holga.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I think I've been doing very well with my Holga.

If you like your results, then it's a success. I've got two Holgas (one brand new still in the box) and a Debonair (Film Photography Project sells these, they're like a 6x4.5-only Holga but with two shutter speeds rather than "two" apertures -- even take the same push-on lens accessories). I did my first photography with my mother's Duaflex IV around 1967-1968, as well as various 620 and 127 Brownies, various Instamatics, and a Polaroid Swinger; at present I have two Brownie Hawkeye Flash, a Brownie Bullseye, and a couple others (all for 620), plus an Ansco Shur-Shot jr. (the cut-rate version of a cardboard box camera). They all can make nice images if you understand them and want the kind of images they make, but they get a lot less exercise these days than my top quality (for their day) folders and RB67. With the price of film today, even doing all my own processing, I'm a little more inclined to use high quality lenses and reliable bodies for the kind of images I like.

 

[MattKing]

This makes twice you've comments about my threads.. but I end up deleting them because they never end up going to the right direction.

Speaking generally...
Threads often have a life of their own.
And it is really common for people to have really different perspectives of an issue than the OP might have.
If I start a thread and it goes off on a tangent, I just roll with that - the thread got people talking about something related that they are interested in - more than what I thought I was going to get.
Sometimes the tangent will be due to my poor choice in how I started the thread.
Other times I or other participants will have little trouble steering the thread back on track.
And of course, sometimes people will argue in an objectionable manner - that is what the Report Post function is for.
I've never encountered an APUG or Photrio thread of at least a few posts that didn't have anything at least slightly not directly on point in it. And unless draconian moderation is imposed, I wouldn't expect any thread in the future to be any different.
If you start a thread and you get at least some responses that are on topic, kindly leave your starting post in place.