Comments on: The Holga and avoiding it

By: naypi

naypi — Fri, 23 May 2008 07:58:42 +0000

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.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 04 May 2008 21:31:38 +0000

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.

By: КГБ

КГБ — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:33:28 +0000

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.

By: duh

duh — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 05:11:32 +0000

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…

By: Lauren

Lauren — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:35:05 +0000

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!

By: Jose

Jose — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:10:17 +0000

Holgas own PERIOD.

By: Demus

Demus — Wed, 16 May 2007 04:27:38 +0000

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.

By: Mr Sanguine

Mr Sanguine — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 08:22:22 +0000

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.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:55:41 +0000

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.

By: Jefry

Jefry — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:31:13 +0000

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.

By: bec

bec — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 01:10:55 +0000

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!!!

By: Duncan

Duncan — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:20:20 +0000

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/
:)

By: Ren

Ren — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 12:47:49 +0000

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.

By: jaims

jaims — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 04:31:56 +0000

youre retarded, obviously.
look at the AMAZING shots people have taken, dumbass.

By: missy

missy — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:51:03 +0000

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…

By: lol

lol — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:30:34 +0000

lol, you totally miss the point of the whole toy camera thing, like most of the people doing photography for a living.

By: Thoughts About Photography

Thoughts About Photography — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 04:50:29 +0000

Some Avoid the Holga, Others Embrace It

Who buys a Holga expecting results like a Hasselblad? If they do, 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…

By: Teki

Teki — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:55:02 +0000

lets face it, it’s the photograhper, not the camera that makes the shot.

By: Markus Puustinen

Markus Puustinen — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 08:09:36 +0000

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/

By: Adrian

Adrian — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:03:46 +0000

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.

By: Brian Larter

Brian Larter — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:35:41 +0000

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]

By: PotownAl

PotownAl — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:09:34 +0000

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.

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:13:54 +0000

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.

By: ford

ford — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:48:54 +0000

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.

By: quis

quis — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:30:31 +0000

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.

By: wolever

wolever — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:54:31 +0000

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?

By: Camera Man

Camera Man — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:35:22 +0000

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