First attempt at Lomography

nugentch · Aug 15, 2014

I recently bought a Holga 120N (about $25) and decided to give Lomography a go. This is my first attempt. I used the 35mm adapter and shot a roll of Fuji Superia X-TRA (400 ASA). Out of 36 I got 3 or 4 that I thought were presentable.

Notice the red spot in the middle. Light leak? On this shot it is not really that bad, but here is an extreme example of the "red in the middle".

The camera has a hot shoe and I used a Holga flash unit that I purchased with the camera. Those shots came out the best.

I sent the film away for processing and had the processor create a JPEG CD so that the images could be uploaded and shared.

All in all, it is kinda cool to get back to film and not knowing how the shots will turn out for a week or so. It's kinda like Christmas when the envelope with the negatives and prints arrive. It really makes me slow down and think about the shot. Lomography may even help me re-think the way I shoot digitally.

waday · Aug 15, 2014

Neat and different. I like #3.

nugentch · Aug 15, 2014

Thanks. I have some B&W 120 negatives processed and may put them up later today. As I mentioned this really worked better with the flash. That is surprising as the flash unit was about $12 from Amazon.

limr · Aug 15, 2014

The Holga can be fun and you'll get better results once you get used to the situations that are better for its limitations. After some experimentation, it'll be easier to predict what could be a good "Holga" shot and what will just be meh. In natural light, it's essentially only good for Sunny 16 conditions or maybe slightly under and yes, it'll flare quite easily.

Personally, I find it much more interesting to stick to 120 film rather than the 35mm. For me, much of the allure of the Holga is the blur/vignette that adds a sort of nostalgic, dreamy quality to the image, but that's not really evident with the smaller 35mm format. Plus, the size of the negative helps you get more out of the plastic lens.

Here's what I mean:

(Ignore the water spots - it was a development error plus Efke 100 film that has a super soft emulsion.)

nugentch · Aug 15, 2014

Thanks, Limr. Your shots are exactly what I'm going for. As I mentioned, I have some 120 coming in the mail today. We'll see how they turn out!

limr · Aug 15, 2014

Hey, if you want some 35mm Lomo fun, try the Konstruktor. It's not bad for Lomography - only $36 per kit, I believe. Otherwise I wouldn't have bought it! - and it's a DIY kit that's quite easy and fun (except for B10 spring, which is the work of the devil. Be warned.)

Here's a thread I started last year: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...to-gallery/336656-lomography-konstruktor.html

nugentch · Aug 15, 2014

Thanks, limr! I'll look into that. You were right the 120 looks much better. Here are some BW I just got back.

vintagesnaps · Aug 15, 2014

I've used mine with 120 although I'm fairly new to it, and have so far just done B&W. If you don't want so much leakiness people tape them up, I haven't gotten leaks with mine. You can use gaffer's tape I think, or thinner black electrical tape. I got a set of three small rolls of tape from I think Freestyle, or maybe Adorama. Or keep the leaks!

They're not that different from some of the plastic/bakelite midcentury viewfinder film cameras. I have fun with them but I think like Leonore it's a matter of figuring out what they work best in photographing.