dagabel
Established
I don't own a Holga, but I found this article refreshing in yesterday's Denver Post. Looks like they turned their photographers loose over the summer with Holgas:
http://www.denverpost.com/mediacenter
Duane
http://www.denverpost.com/mediacenter
Duane
candie
Established
very lovely pictures - thx for the link
candie
candie
dagabel
Established
Actually, these photos were taken by their PJs.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
sitemistic said:
Yes - that's already an unfortunate trend, with lots of rags publishing user generated content from cell phone cameras, and other crap. PJ's are having a hard time of it.
There was a good article in PDN (i think) recently about this... some scary trends in this business that I'm finding hard to fight off and stay profitable.
mtbbrian
RF's ROCK!andFilm RULES!!
Muh Ahh Ahh!
Holgas, are taking over the world!!
Brian
Holgas, are taking over the world!!
Brian
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
These pictures were taken by the Post's staff PJs.sitemistic said:
I like it, it's kind of an exercise in relaxing photographic rules and going out, not to get a technically perfect picture, but to get a round picture.
kmack
do your job, then let go
Ah yes...
Nothing sez "Art" quite like massive vignetteing at the corners.
Nothing sez "Art" quite like massive vignetteing at the corners.
photogdave
Shops local
Thanks for the link. There are some really nice images in there, as well as some subpar ones. Definitely worth looking at.
ibcrewin
Ah looky looky
In my opinion this proves two things. First, pro photographers are still using film. and Second, the camera is just a tool.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Why the cynicism?
This sounds like a well-executed photo project. Some of the images are lovely, of course there has to be some that are just fillers.
I'm not enamored to Holga-Lomo-ism, but the camera is a perfectly valid tool for doing a project like this.
Kudos to Denver Post, the more film are consumed, the better it would be for people who love to shoot film. Like us.
This sounds like a well-executed photo project. Some of the images are lovely, of course there has to be some that are just fillers.
I'm not enamored to Holga-Lomo-ism, but the camera is a perfectly valid tool for doing a project like this.
Kudos to Denver Post, the more film are consumed, the better it would be for people who love to shoot film. Like us.
IGMeanwell
Well-known
Morca007
Matt
Some very good images in that gallery, makes me wish there was a place to process 120mm around here, so I could go out and use my Holga.
EDIT: sitemistic- what do the pictures need to be 'about' other than, for example, a record of how the photographer remembers the events?
EDIT: sitemistic- what do the pictures need to be 'about' other than, for example, a record of how the photographer remembers the events?
Last edited:
MichaelHarris
Well-known
sitemistic said:
And that begs the question, What makes a great photograph? The image, the camera, or the photographer?
You've ruled against the photographer(burger flipper), and the camera(Holga). All that's left is the image and if it's a good image do we really need to care what took it? For it to appeal to someone does it need to be shot with German glass and by someone with a hyphenated last name?
Just my two cents,
Michael Harris
landsknechte
Well-known
Frankly, I can't help but feel that if photos in the Magnum gallery were composed and exposed exactly the same - but with a "real" camera, there'd be a very different response here. Sure, there is a lot of Holga crap. There's a lot of crap taken with "real" cameras too.
danwilly
Established
Perhaps we should have a discussion on the future of photojournalism. In our newsroom the editors are giving reporters digital cameras to take with for headshots and simple stuff. The photo staff doesn't get it, they see it as being relieved of scut work. They don't see the handwriting on the wall.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
danwilly said:
Yup - the headline typsetters felt the same way...
It's a scary world for PJs who aren't paying attention right now.
jbf
||||||
A camera is just that, a camera. It doesnt matter if you have a $10,000 camera setup or a $100 (or less) setup so long as you are a good photographer. Obviously there will be limitations as to what you can do with cheaper equipment but in the end if you do not have the strong base of photographic technique, compositional, and artistic skills your photos are still going to look like crap.
I dont see what the fuss is. Just because people use Holga's does not mean their photos are good. Some may say "oh, thats neat" but a real photograph has something more to it than "oh thats pretty." It has depth to it.
People get worried over the silliest things.
Oh and it's already been mentioned like five times already that the people using the Holgas were Photojournalist to begin with. So why are you so upset? They are still photographers and obviously have the ability otherwise they wouldnt be photojournalist (in most cases).
It is also wise to note the fact that just because reporters are given cameras does not mean that their photos will be of any value. Yeah they will have a photo, but when an 'honest-to-god' photo journalists work is setup next to a simple reporter's photographs the images should tell the truth.
If a newspaper company cant see the difference between a crappy photograph taken by someone with no photographic skill and a photojournalist who has photos with impact, then obviously there is something wrong with the paper.
I would suggest you change employers, because if someone cant see the value of good photography then most likely you are not being paid enough anyway.
I dont see what the fuss is. Just because people use Holga's does not mean their photos are good. Some may say "oh, thats neat" but a real photograph has something more to it than "oh thats pretty." It has depth to it.
People get worried over the silliest things.
Oh and it's already been mentioned like five times already that the people using the Holgas were Photojournalist to begin with. So why are you so upset? They are still photographers and obviously have the ability otherwise they wouldnt be photojournalist (in most cases).
It is also wise to note the fact that just because reporters are given cameras does not mean that their photos will be of any value. Yeah they will have a photo, but when an 'honest-to-god' photo journalists work is setup next to a simple reporter's photographs the images should tell the truth.
If a newspaper company cant see the difference between a crappy photograph taken by someone with no photographic skill and a photojournalist who has photos with impact, then obviously there is something wrong with the paper.
I would suggest you change employers, because if someone cant see the value of good photography then most likely you are not being paid enough anyway.
Last edited:
MichaelHarris
Well-known
I'm no photojournalist and I'm really just a beginner, I'm living proof anyone can get a good shot if they try hard enough. I shot this from the stands, I'm sure the guys on the field got better shots than I did. They get the cool vests and stuff:
Sure I would like to be a big-time photographer but as long as I keep taking shots that make me happy that's all I need.
Sure I would like to be a big-time photographer but as long as I keep taking shots that make me happy that's all I need.
cmedin
Well-known
I think it was an interesting exercise; giving pro photographers one of the most basic/simple pieces of gear and see what they can do with it. It looks like these weren't just wild carefree snapshots (ala Lomography, don't get me started...) but they were really trying to get the best out of what they had to work with.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
MichaelHarris said:
Well, you can't have an image without a camera and the photographer behind it. The image is, at the very least, the end result of what the photographer saw through the eye of the camera.