Toy cameras

[Maris]

Frankly I am not convinced by this toy camera business. It seems to be a largely aleatory activity.

One uses an unpredictable camera with focus and exposure properties hidden from previsualisation. One points, clicks, processes, and hopes. The sequence of actions runs its course without any way to change the result except via what to point at and when to click.

Sometimes the final photographs are quite beautiful but I wonder how to credit the photographers who appears to be just optimistic passengers on a train of pointing, clicking, hoping, and processing; innocent receivers of what Holga (or Diana) cares to deliver.

Maybe the credit is like that due to people who find photographs rather than contrive them. The finders, after all, have to be clever enough and motivated enough to keep looking, keep clicking in spite of encountering a lot of dross; assuming dross exists in this context.

 

[Akki14]

See, I don't totally see it as point,shoot(click),hope. I don't see them as any less of a tool as a filter on a lens or certain darkroom techniques.
Obviously there are different dogmas of toy camera users. Lomo in particular seems to be in the point, click, hope category in their ethos. Of course that doesn't mean everyone with a lomo marketed camera uses it in that manner. Some "true artists" do use holgas and the like with carefully thought out composition, etc.
I'm using a hand-held light meter to make sure I get somewhat accurate exposure in one of my box brownies. It has two waist level viewfinders so I can set up amazing compositions. It also has three apertures which is rather fancy for a "toy" camera, I admit.
I think there are quite a few different kinds of "pretty" and "good" in the photography world. Some people really really like grain and like pushing film, others abhor it and do everything in their power to avoid it. I like grain and funky vignetting and fun things like that.

Also "focus and exposure properties hidden from previsualisation"... are you now gunning for the big D word with its fancy glowing screens?

 

[jstraw]

Frankly I am not convinced by this toy camera business. It seems to be a largely aleatory activity.

One uses an unpredictable camera with focus and exposure properties hidden from previsualisation. One points, clicks, processes, and hopes. The sequence of actions runs its course without any way to change the result except via what to point at and when to click.

Sometimes the final photographs are quite beautiful but I wonder how to credit the photographers who appears to be just optimistic passengers on a train of pointing, clicking, hoping, and processing; innocent receivers of what Holga (or Diana) cares to deliver.

Maybe the credit is like that due to people who find photographs rather than contrive them. The finders, after all, have to be clever enough and motivated enough to keep looking, keep clicking in spite of encountering a lot of dross; assuming dross exists in this context.

I don't see it as aleatory at all. Though, I must say, I have no problem with John Cage or William Burroughs so...

My Holga has characteristics. If I buy another one it may have different characteristics. I know them, or I say I'm getting to know them better all the time. That's true of my field camera as well.

But I've taped my light leaks, I've tested my shutter speed, I meter my exposures, etc. I endeavor to make use of the focusing anomalies and vignetting behavior and contrast characteristics and not to be at their mercy.

 

[gr82bart]

Well, in that case if you want aleatory photography? That's digital. Blast a bajillion pics, edit for the ones that are close to the mark, PS them for final print. Everyone can now get a good print.

At least with a Holga, my luck is limited to 12 shots. No skill required apparently.

Regards, Art.

 

[Jim Chinn]

I don't see it as aleatory at all. Though, I must say, I have no problem with John Cage or William Burroughs so...

My Holga has characteristics. If I buy another one it may have different characteristics. I know them, or I say I'm getting to know them better all the time. That's true of my field camera as well.

But I've taped my light leaks, I've tested my shutter speed, I meter my exposures, etc. I endeavor to make use of the focusing anomalies and vignetting behavior and contrast characteristics and not to be at their mercy.

Exactly how I approach my use of a Holga. They are only unpredictable up to the time you get to know the quirks of your particular camera. I think what ends up as a print seems to have a mystical quality to the viewer but is predictable to me. Of course there are those who love the anomalies that various toy or throwaway cameras produce, so they may grow tired of one kind and move on to another for that unpredictability and that is a perfectly valid approach.

 

[Brian Miller]

Art can only be made with tools and materials that were produced for that purpose. Nothing made without them can be art.

If I make a sculpture from clay, then it can never be art? Just because I use only my hands and the clay comes from the ground?

I think its a misnomer to call any physical object "art." Art can't be a physical object, because art is performed. When the performance ceases, so does the art. What can be produced is an artwork, i.e. the work of an artist.

 

[jstraw]

If I make a sculpture from clay, then it can never be art? Just because I use only my hands and the clay comes from the ground?

I think its a misnomer to call any physical object "art." Art can't be a physical object, because art is performed. When the performance ceases, so does the art. What can be produced is an artwork, i.e. the work of an artist.

Did you read the whole thread? The quote is stripped from context, losing it's sense of facetiousness and devil's advocacy.

I think the semantics about what to call the artifacts that result from the making of art is fairly irrelevent but I could be wrong. I'll consult an expert on my next visit to the Museum of Modern Artwork.

Performance? I guess that "David" thing is a pretty fortuitous leftover from that dance Michalangelo did with a block of marble.

 

[gr82bart]

I think the semantics about what to call the artifacts that result from the making of art is fairly irrelevent but I could be wrong. I'll consult an expert on my next visit to the Museum of Modern Artwork.

Performance? I guess that "David" thing is a pretty fortuitous leftover from that dance Michalangelo did with a block of marble.

Damn you! Another keyboard sprayed with drink! I nearly choked too. LMAO.

Regards, Art.

 

[Daniel_OB]

error

 

[mtbbrian]

Shooting with a Holga or any other toy camera involves a different mindset.
For one, it involves letting go of a lot of control that you would normally have with whatever your normal camera is.
My Holga aesthtic involves the term wabi-sabi, the exploration and appreciation for the beauty of the imperfect. The light leaks and the lack of sharpness for expample. I have several photographs where the light leak is often another compositional element.
Shooting with a Holga also forces me to make an more of an effort to look for good compositons.
And lastly, and most importantly, Holgas are just plain FUN!
Brian
Holga's ROCK!

 

[jstraw]

For one, it involves letting go of a lot of control that you would normally have with whatever your normal camera is.

I must disagree, to an extent. I work towards knowing my Holga's anomalies and try to make use of them. I don't see this as any more a letting go of control than with any other camera. I choose to view a Holgs's "flaws" neutrally, as "characteristics." Sure, there are fewer mechanical controls for me to manipulate but I'm no more lax about composition or exposure with a Holga.

 

[mtbbrian]

I must disagree, to an extent. I work towards knowing my Holga's anomalies and try to make use of them. I don't see this as any more a letting go of control than with any other camera. I choose to view a Holgs's "flaws" neutrally, as "characteristics." Sure, there are fewer mechanical controls for me to manipulate but I'm no more lax about composition or exposure with a Holga.

I am with you there, about knowing your Holga's and all that.
I don't know about you, but I have three Holga's and they all have slightly different areas where and how they get a light leak and I can tell you which ones will do so.
I make it easy, I have one that the standard black, one I have painted red and one I have painted yellow.
No matter what, shooting with a Holga is about the beauty in the imperfect.
I have looked at your website and I really like your Holga work, I think we have similiar tastes in what we like to shoot with our Holgas.
Brian

 

[jstraw]

I am with you there, about knowing your Holga's and all that.
I don't know about you, but I have three Holga's and they all have slightly different areas where and how they get a light leak and I can tell you which ones will do so.
I make it easy, I have one that the standard black, one I have painted red and one I have painted yellow.
No matter what, shooting with a Holga is about the beauty in the imperfect.
I have looked at your website and I really like your Holga work, I think we have similiar tastes in what we like to shoot with our Holgas.
Brian

Thank you very much!

 

[Joe VanCleave]

Art and craft are inextricably conjoined; where it succeeds best, the two are indistinguishable.

~Joe

 

[Russ Young]

I have to completely agree with JSTRAW on this one. There's a drawer full of 'toy cameras' at hand and each one has been tested, both on a carefully designed target in the studio and at infinity to determine what it's unique characteristics are... and some don't have them (Holgas IMHO).
Also not interested in random effects light spurious light leaks. When I shoot with a toy camera, I am as certain what the resulting print will look like as when shooting with my Kodak All-Metal Commercial 8x10 with a 450 Nikkor.

It's a tool like any other camera to impose my vision on a disorderly and chaotic world.
Russ

 

[Sparky]

How do people feel about the idea of the holga as a 'hyperphotographic' tool? - In the sense that it is an exaggeration, a celebration of all the qualities that we, as 'analog' photographers seem to hold dear.

 

[jstraw]

How do people feel about the idea of the holga as a 'hyperphotographic' tool? - In the sense that it is an exaggeration, a celebration of all the qualities that we, as 'analog' photographers seem to hold dear.

If that makes you happy.

I guess for me it's a method of sort of anthropomorphizing the idea of the camera. The advance of camera technology has been largely about increased precision and control, with some notion of perfection as a guiding star. Biological beings such as humans, are not precise or perfect in this way and as we go along, we become ever less so. My Holda "sees" more like an animal and less like a machine.

 

[filmbug]

Holga is a cheap way to get into medium format photography. With the prices for used medium format gears dropping so low nowadays, the price difference may not be as significant.

 

[Jim Chinn]

I can easily out Holga a Holga with my 4x5 using movements to create selective planes of focus, specialty filters or applying substances to a clear filter to cause flare and mimic lens aberations. You can even use a polaroid back to eliminate any unpredictability in the final shot, not to mention that you can meter your exposure and then develop for an optimum negative to print on a specific paper.

So I guess for me it's more about spotaneity and the unpredictability. It's still fun to see the contact sheet from a Holga roll and see what turned out OK. But maybe it's as simple as all the stuff with the 4x5 is sometimes just to much work.

 

[Akki14]

I'm starting to feel they're just cameras. Why the snobbery? They're all just light tight boxes with light sensitive material in it at the end of the day. I like the stuff that comes out of my "toys". It's different from the flat blandness of an SLR.

 

[indierthanthou]

They're all just light tight boxes

I thought the main appeal of Holga's were the fact that they're NOT light tight? Don't they come with a roll of electrical tape to cover up light leaks?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It's a curious fact that someone would choose to shoot a very cheap camera when they could shoot something better.

Define better, please. I love using a Holga - but I know what I'm getting. It's another tool to reach the end result - hopefully a beautiful or interesting print. Better is all about how you define it. I use a Hasselblad, but get better results with my Mamiya 645, Holga 6x6, and ZeroImage pinhole 6x6.

I think it's elitist to call a Holga a bad camera. Is it plastic? Yes. Is it poorly made? Yes. Can you make fantastic photographs using one? Yes. What matters to you?

- Thomas

 

[Akki14]

I thought the main appeal of Holga's were the fact that they're NOT light tight? Don't they come with a roll of electrical tape to cover up light leaks?

I like the Holga's lens. They don't come with a roll of electrical tape :rolleyes: I've not had light leak problems with either of my holga bodies - only light leaks from not tightly wound rolls if you don't adjust the tension of the spools using shims or foam glued in an appropriate place, etc. It's a lesson in tweaking and perfecting.

 

[mtbbrian]

I somehow missed this post when it was first posted..
There's a idea in Japanese art called "wabi sabi", which may or may not be cliché, but it's a big part of why I use a Holga.
In wabi sabi, imperfect beauty is far more important than "perfect beauty".
And like the others have mentioned I too like the challenge of making photographs with such a rudimentary camera, I feel it makes me a better photographer.
Holga a bad camera? No way! They are GREAT cameras!
Brian

 

[Keefe Borden]

small plastic point & shoot

I've dabbled a bit with a toy camera that I bought for $10 from a local drug store, so I find this entire thread very insightful. I've seen the term "toy camera" discussed in reference to Holgas and Dianas, but I have a general question for photographers who use toy cameras: Do you consider a small 35mm camera with a plastic lens a toy camera? On similar forums, I've seen photographers make a distinction between cheap point and shoots on one hand and a genuine "toy camera" on the other. Is there a real difference?

Thanks for all insights, Keefe.