The Holga and avoiding it
From the same people that brought you the Lomo, the Holga is pretty much the same thing, but this time in medium format!
According to the Holga web site the camera is designed and engineered in 1982 in China. The name is derived from Cantonese; Ho Gwong, which supposedly means “Very Bright”.
There are two models of the Holga; The Holga 120 S features an extremely dark lens (f8), fairly wide angle (60mm) and that’s it. The Holga 120 SF is identical, but has a flash.
According to the web site, the Holga has “soft focus, double-exposures, streaming colors, intense vignetting, and unpredictable light leaks”
Not such a great thing, after all…
The Holga is a complete joke, pretty much like the Lomo, but for different reasons. Yes, it is fun to tinker with, but the entire point of shooting medium format in the first place is to get significantly better picture quality.
The fact that the Holga has a f8 lens is worth shedding a tear over (even single-use cameras have f8 lenses, and they are basically thrown at you). I cannot imagine everything they must have messed up to not being able to squeeze any more brightness out of that lens.
Also, the soft focus argument is rather depressing. Of course, soft focus can be fabulous, but shouldn’t you, the photographer, decide when your camera decides to use soft focus? The same goes for the rest of the list of “features”.
The Lomo had something called the “tunnel effect” which really was due to horrendously bad lens quality. For the Holga, they have at least got the sense to call a spade by it’s real name, and call it vignetting. However, vignetting is never a good thing. Streaming colours, double exposures (providing you cannot control them) and unpredictable light leaks are all signs of a camera that is seriously flawed.
I ran a few films through the Holga the other day, and I must say I was curious if I should laugh or cry. I decided to do the latter. The camera I tried (A less flawed model than the average, according to the owner) was the worst camera I have handled in my life.
It costs £18 brand new, what do you expect?
Well, I really expect people not to fall for that. If you look around a little, you should be able to get a decent TLR for about £25 in an antique shop or used photo dealership. You will be getting something far more reliable, far more fun, and far more exact than the Holga can ever be.
For pete’s sake - if you are going to go with medium format, at least get something where you have any advantage of the format at all! The Lomo is fun, because it offers you to see the world from a different angle. The camera even has a decent lens and a fair chance of taking good shots. The Holga is absolutely worthless.
All in all; I recognize the fact that flaws might “make” the picture. But - and this is important - you should at least be able to control the flaws to a certain extent. Do yourself a favour and avoid this thing!
Still curious? Check out The Holga Website
What do you think?
Have you tried one of these things? Do you think they are worth trying? Is my review fair or completely out there? Drop us a comment!
For your reference, lomo stuff covered on Photocritic before can be found by doing a tag-search for Lomo!
Did you like this post? Stay in touch!
If you liked this post, why not stay in touch with Photocritic going forward?
I'm on Flickr and Twitter, or you could add my RSS feed to your favourite feed reader. Or, if you don't fancy doing any of that, drop us a comment below; you can be anonymous if you want to, but if you add a link to your blog or similar, I'll promise I'll come have a look!
Insights, suggestions and comments
I think people who buy a holga and use them know all of these quirks and thats why they use them!
If you browse through photoblogs.org’s tags for holga you can see some excellent work with a Holga:
http://www.photoblogs.org/bookmarks/holga
A good exmaple is Phil Bebbington holga portfolio:
http://www.terrorkitten.com/iblog/index.php?x=browse&category=22
Ah, FINALLY! Someone who isn’t insane!
I’ve never been terribly impressed by Hulgas or anything in the Lomo line… I mean, I understand some people see it as art (and, to be honest, I’ve seen some incredible Lomo art), but for the most part it’s crap :)
Now, it could be that I’m just a bitter, non-artsy DSLR kid who thinks that, to bee good, a photo should be things like sharp and in focus… But I don’t think it would be THAT hard to take a normal camera and “lomoify” the photos? Didn’t we see a story on that a while ago?
I think a lot of the photos that people take with a Holga wouldn’t be particuarly noteworthy if a regular MF camera or digital SLR was used instead. The Holga seems to be a bit of an aesthetic crutch to me; people lean on it in lieu of better using their eyes.
The Holga is a very different camera from a Lomo. The Holga is like a Brownie Camera of old. The f8 lens is necessary to give enough depth of field.
The point is missed in your article. If you don’t want to use a super simple camera that makes a big negative, don’t. Plenty of people get fantastic pictures out of them.
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don’t really see the mileage in badmouthing something you don’t like…..just don’t buy one or use one…nice and simple. I think that you’ll find that pretty much all of those who use Holga’s use them for exactly the reasons that you hate them….so we kinda know what we are gonna get. Perhaps it was just your photos that were bad….with a little searching there are plenty of photographs out there that show very well the merits of using these cameras. There are times when sharpness and control are desireable and times when that is not required. I think that you will also find that those who shoot with HOlga’s also shoot with other cameras where they are getting sharp images. I guess it’s about using the right camera for the right job.
I got sucked into the world of Holga after browsing a few Flickr groups. I thought how cool it would be to get back to my old high school photography roots shooting B&W film. After shooting a few rolls, I think it’s safe to say that there will be a slightly used Holga up for auction on Ebay. I like the experimental attitude of the Holga, but I can do all that and more with my D70. My advice, If you own a dslr and are looking to get weird, buy a Lensbaby. If you like the effects that Holga’s produce, buy Photoshop Elements.
If you enjoy shooting roll’s and roll’s of film and have an endless supply of patience, buy a Holga.
A friend just loaned me a Holga for the weekend. So far so good but I honestly have no idea what I am doing [lol]
Who buys a Holga expecting results like a Hasselblad? If they do, then like you, they will be disappointed. Control over a camera isn’t always a good thing. Think about how many cameras are sold for hundreds and hundreds of dollars a piece - and the majority of the photos are garbage. Technically these “state of the art” cameras can produce perfectly exposed, perfectly in focus pictures. That doesn’t mean they are good photos, though. I think there is too much emphasis on camera gear by photographers. Learn the basics of photography and you can produce a great photo with anything from a Hasselblad to a pinhole camera. I like the Holga because it introduces an element of risk into my photography that sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t. I happen to like not knowing what I am going to get because when I plan a photo out meticulously and obsess about getting the exposure right, I rarely am impressed with the results - no matter how technically perfect the image may be.
Holga is a toy but that fact shouldn’t be a reason to avoid it. The whole point of photography is to experiment with different kind of equipment and have fun and Holga is a cheap way to do it. It is also extremely lightweight so you can carry it with you all the time which makes it perfect for street photography. It is also very versatile so you can use it anywhere anytime if you know how to use it.
Have a look at these Holga photographs: http://markuspuustinen.com/pf/
lets face it, it’s the photograhper, not the camera that makes the shot.
lol, you totally miss the point of the whole toy camera thing, like most of the people doing photography for a living.
all those those things you listed are the exact reasons why i love the holga. the unpredictability, the cheapness, not having any control over the outcome. it’s spontaneous and fun! and ultimately i love the way most of the pictures come out…
youre retarded, obviously.
look at the AMAZING shots people have taken, dumbass.
Apparently the blogger is retarded, yet the troll can’t seem to form a coherent and corretly written sentence or two. Eh, Jaims?
Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder. I like the quirkiness of the Holga pictures that I’ve seen (never played with the camera). I suppose it’s “professional” equivalent is the Lensbaby bendy lense which makes awesomely fuzzy pictures too.
I’ve never used a holga myself, but I know someone who takes great pictures which wouldn’t look as nice without the Holga effect: http://whoatherechief.deviantart.com/gallery/
:)
As a lot of the people here have said - the whole point of the Holga is to experiment and get interesting shots!
Photography doesn’t have to be perfectly clear images with exact colours. you get bored easly with perfect images.
As for photoshopping digital pics for “unusual” images ? I understand thats an art in itself - but it’s cheating!!!
This is complete rubbish. It’s a fun camera that turns out amazing shots that can’t be duplicated with a fancy DSLR. It’s not going to be anyone’s primary camera, but it doesn’t hurt you either. Did a holga hurt you? Seriously. Why would you write this?
I would understand if the camera was expensive and people were selling their Canons and Nikons to buy it. It’s a toy camera. It’s like writing a review bad review for shoelaces.
I am a Hasselblad owner and I love my Holga. My Hasselblad doesn’t come with me everywhere. It’s heavy, valuable and requires a fair amount of brain power to make it function properly. The Holga is a lightweight, expendable and carefree toy. It’s a wonderful camera when it works right. If you are already well-versed in using manual cameras and if you use it often enough, those right moments will be pretty frequent.
I am actually preparing to exhibit a number of Holga portraits in a group show in May. I also work for a company that does digital capture, using Phase digital backs. We have a modified Holga that can be used with these backs. To clarify: A $40,000 digital back mounted on a $30 camera. It’s amazing.
Here’s a cheaper solution over the Phase backs…
http://www.holgamods.com/xt/xt.html
Might not get you the light leaks but still beats spending a small fortune to turn your Holga into a digital.
I just have to point out one thing. The people who make the lomo lc-a have nothing to do with the production of the Holga. They make an extremely overpriced kit with a couple rolls of film and a paperback book. You can go to any store (b&H, freestyle) and get one for $18, without all the hipster garbage.
Holgas own PERIOD.
seriously, if you hate the camera that much, why did you buy it
people love the holga for THOSE REASONS
if you want a good quality camera why on earth would you buy a holga.
nobody makes it out to be anything its not!
of course the holga is a piece of crap. of course it gives “terrible” picture quality, you obviously haven’t really spent much time digging around the lomo community…people don’t buy them as a cheap alternative to a hassleblad…
It is almost 3:30 in the morning and while i should be in bed, ive read every response to this post and all i have to say is wow. I would have never believed that so many people could get so passionate about arguing over a camera. Its a fucking piece of plastic with a crap lens. Despite that, I like it. Personally, thats not my primary camera as I have an oldold OM-1 that turns out exceptional quality photos, a lomographic fisheye, an L-CA an oldoldold agfa camera and an super old 620 TLR that i cant even use, not to mention my Holga N. I actually havent taken enough shots with the camera to get photos of exceptional quality out of my Holga yet, but i still see the potential. Im not a professional photographer either, im just a 15 year old with a lot of cameras. Personally, ive grown to believe that the way the “Lomographic Society” markets their products is just a witty guy writing clever lines on a website. Forgive my writing mechanics as i am pretty tired. Anyways, I cant say anything about the l-ca yet because i havent gotten any of the rolls developed yet. However, as for this whole argument over the Holga, I think everyone should just keep it to themselves and yes, i realize how hypocritical that may sound after writing this much but thats what i have to say. goodnight to you sir.
I love when people get really upset about something that is entirely optional. You don’t have to use a Holga if you would rather use your $10,000 Canon. Why not use both? Interestingly, the January 2008 issue of National Geo had an article on Indonesia’s Volcanos with photography by the great John Stanmeyer. At the back of the issue, they have a photo of him wandering across a field with about 5 cameras around his neck, including a Holga.
Chill.
The things you just described as “bad” are exactly the kind of things lomographer’s look for. you’re obviously not a lomographer. It’s the “awfulness” of the pictures and the flaws of the camera that create surprising effects. This is what lomography is about. It’s about getting away from “perfect” pictures and calculated effects. Sure there’s photoshop for that and all the fancy modes of fancier cameras but the point is to get away from all that and just create pictures. “Shoot from the hip” is one rule in lomography, although this is not always followed, it’s about letting go of the control you’re so fond of. It’s alternative photography. “Alternative” is the key word.
Hey, Ansel Adams, take a pill. Haven’t we had arguments like this before, with each artistic movement before it becomes accepted?
Everything has to be just so, perfect exposure. Kind of rigid & robotic if you ask me. I often wonder if people who need to have so much control over their photography technically, are compensating for the lack of control they have otherwise.
Maybe there’s something wrong with me. I like to fly by the seat of my pants, Holga in hand. And actually, currently, it IS my primary camera. You can work your zillion dollar camera “real good”. Good for you! Are you taking a photo I’ve seen a million times before? Probably. Is there much behind your photos besides the technical aspect? Probably not. Not that I’m advocating pretentious blowhards, but there is a middle ground. I want dark, brooding & otherworldly, & the Holga is the perfect vehicle for that.
The critic obviously has a closed mind where a Holga is concerned, & should be the last person to review one.
I personally hate the holga. Not because its a cheap camera or because I hate the raw quality of it, but rather, because its an overpriced and overhyped piece of crap. If it were 20$ and was accepted as rather gimmicky, perhaps Id think differently. As it stands, Lomo charges 70$ for it. Are you kidding me? Thats like charging 30$ for a happy meal. And then you get all the wanna-be hipsters who instead of attempting to create actually interesting photos, instead merely take pictures of their friends doing stupid things and because its out of focus - it MUST be artsy. I dont deny that some may create some fantastic photos with it, I just think that the other 95% of the crap produced by it is more than enough to make me hate it. Add in the crazy price tag, and you got me hating the holga.
Trackbacks
Share your wisdom