What's so great about Holgas?

thereforeiamx · Sep 4, 2008

I hear a great deal about them, but kinda don't understand the hype.
Enlighten me?

:greenpbl:

anubis404 · Sep 4, 2008

Mostly because they're a bit of a joke. They were originally designed as cheap toy medium format cameras in china, so the poorer chinese could afford a camera. However, their quality is so bad they produce a unique effect that some people really like.

tkaat · Sep 4, 2008

They produce a effect that is time consuming to do in a editing software and because they are fun to play with ( you can tape all type of things inside to make it personal and won't feel that bad for doing so cause of the price).

Hawaii Five-O · Sep 4, 2008

actually they don't take bad pictures:thumbup:

ksmattfish · Sep 5, 2008

Some folks get a kick out of using simple, cheap cameras. The effects caused by cheap lenses and light leaks are looked at as part of the image making process rather than flaws. There are a million cheap, goofy cameras out there, but Holga caught on and became hip and trendy. I think a lot of folks like it because it may be their first venture into film formats other than 35mm, and that's always exciting. I've owned a few Holgas, and never really dug them. I prefer other weird, old, simple 120 cameras that are a couple of bucks at antique malls and flea markets, and just as tweaky as a Holga.

bhop · Sep 5, 2008

Look at images taken with the Holga. If you like it, then that's what's great about it. If you don't like the dirty, raw look that Holgas produce, then you probably can't be convinced.

check out these two images of mine. Top is Holga (straight from the negative), bottom is D70 taken at the same location around the same time. Just one comparison.. they both have a nice look to me, but the Holga just has more "character". That's the "hype"

... plus it's a medium format camera for around $30..

Weaving Wax · Sep 5, 2008

Holga's are just plain awesome for all reasons above. Who gives a hoot if their trendy.

Alpha · Sep 5, 2008

I generally don't like them because images shot with them are taken for the purpose of taking them with an holga. Not too different from people who insist on leaving the borders from polaroid sheet film in their images, for the sake of making it abundantly clear that the shot was taken with polaroid sheet film. There are more than enough ways to give an image a worn look in the darkroom or photoshop. Making an image that looks worn, to me, doesn't lend itself to shooting with an uncontrollable piece of ****.

Granted, there is something to be said for committing yourself to an unpredictable outcome. Cross-processing is much the same. But I find that too often people make images too much about the making and not about the image.

bhop · Sep 5, 2008

Alpha said:
There are more than enough ways to give an image a worn look in the darkroom or photoshop. Making an image that looks worn, to me, doesn't lend itself to shooting with an uncontrollable piece of ****.

You could fake it, but why go through the extra work when you can get the results straight on film? Plus, some people still use darkrooms..

But I find that too often people make images too much about the making and not about the image.

There seems to be a misconception that just using a Holga or other 'toy' camera magically makes an awesome image. Not really true, there is tons of crappy shots taken with them. (maybe a lot of my own) The photographer still has to know photography basics. How to "see" an image in the viewfinder or instance.

Alpha · Sep 5, 2008

Well, I agree in part. For example, if I want to vignette I'll shoot with a lens that doesn't quite cover the film plane instead of doing it in the darkroom or in digital post. But I do it to produce the vignette, not to say I shot with a lens that didn't cover the film plane. The distinction I think is one of intention. Holga shouldn't be part of the product, but too often it is. I've literally seen "holga" written on description cards next to hanging photos...

bhop · Sep 5, 2008

Alpha said:
Well, I agree in part. For example, if I want to vignette I'll shoot with a lens that doesn't quite cover the film plane instead of doing it in the darkroom or in digital post. But I do it to produce the vignette, not to say I shot with a lens that didn't cover the film plane. The distinction I think is one of intention. Holga shouldn't be part of the product, but too often it is. I've literally seen "holga" written on description cards next to hanging photos...

Yeah, I get what you're saying. That bugs me too. If I had the chance to show my stuff in a gallery, i'd rather let the image speak for itself, regardless of the camera used.