More evocative photos by using a Holga or other simple camera / process.

[Roger Hicks]

the camera used does not define the artistic impact- - I've seen awesome stuff done with pinholes and holgas , camera obscuras, and I've seen lousy stuff done with leicas, rolleiflexes, hassies and so forth -

i like my holga in moderation - it shakes things up a bit

Again, hard to disagree. But for me, the pic you posted doesn't quite work. I can see the appeal: it just doesn't do it for me, unlike some of your more static, other-worldly pictures.

This is clarifying my thoughts wonderfully. It's a lot easier for me to understand pinhole or Holga shots when they are more fully distanced from the everyday world. A niece, daughter, friend's child, whatever, in modern dress, is too real. In Victorian lace, I might relate to the picture better. Likewise of course a Gothic or even Gothick tomb.

The point in posting or querying pictures here surely is to find out how others react to our pictures (and others' pictures). We can dismiss their opinions as wrong, by our lights, or equally, we can allow the tiniest amount of uncertainty to infiltrate our previously hidebound views. Or we can cave in completely and believe that all out pictures are rubbish.

(Frances is in Paris picking up her sister and brother-in-law so dinner was a quick sandwich and I have more time than usual to spend here. There's a rapidly-reached limit on how long I can write about Serbia for www.semiadventuroustraveller.com).

Cheers,

R.

 

[retnull]

I used a Holga for a few rolls, and decided it wasn't for me (am using old C-mount lenses on Panasonic G1 now). But I understand its appeal.

For me, the question is control -- too much control is NOT a good thing. Tools that give me something I didn't expect are really interesting. John Cage would have liked the Holga.

Very few things in life are under our control, anyway, despite what we prefer to think. Why should the process of making images be any different? "It's not an accident, it's a gift."

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm not here to argue Roger, though it seems that you are.

No, Bobbie, I'm here to explore opinions. I could turn it around and suggest that you are here to argue: you don't want to hear opinions that don't chime exactly with your own.

My suggestion is that for these pictures (a point I admit was not clear at first, but which I believe I have since clarified) I see no emotional or other advantage in using a Holga.

As a broader point, it is true that I fail to see the point of Holgas in the hands of the vast majority of photographers. If you're a rotten photographer with a decent camera (which does NOT seem to be the case with the Truck Farmer series) then you aren't going to get any better by trying to hide the fact by using a Holga.

This is NOT the same as saying that there are no good pictures taken with Holgas; merely that I do not think that as a general rule Holga series are any more successful than, or even as successful as (let us say) Leica enlargements or 10x8 inch contacts. The best are very good indeed, and using a Holga is essential to the photographer's vision; but many photographers choose Holgas and the like as an intellectual or possibly financial imperative regardless of the subject matter.

Furthermore, I'd suggest you started off somewhat on the wrong foot by suggesting that I had not looked at the series in question, when in fact I had.

Cheers,

R.

 

[JohnnyT]

I've just took a peak at the link... MY GOD... Those pictures are marvelous. Congratulation!

Do you use a pen because it's the best in the world...or you use it because you can write beautiful story with it? Even if Bergman would have wrote Throught a Glass darkly with a crayola box, this manuscript is simply fantastic...

I think that in photography, you must use whatever suit your needs as an artist. We also have the chance to choose between an tremendous choice of lens, cameras, styles, techniques... Why restraining ourself...?

The power of an artist is to control the person looking at your art... Even if the camera is unpredictable ; is the life supposed to be predictable? Is art supposed to be... I don't think so.

Anyway, it's what I think. Still, your pictures are simply marvelous and your are indeed a great artist and photographer.

Therefore, my favorite model is coming back at the end of the month and I think I will do a photoshoot with my fearless holga. Even if this beauty deserve to perfection of my Leica! So, thank you; my holga will serve me well again

 

[sojournerphoto]

I ususally use lenses, but sometimes a bit of unpredictablity is fun and freeing.

Bessa R2m.

I'm not taking sides in the argument, but I don't always want sharp or I'd just use my dslr.

Mike

 

[Sonnar Brian]

There is a Forum for Holga style photography,

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=125

But this thread is in the Philosophy forum. I normally stay away- too much emotion, less philosophy in these threads.

I've made some monocle lenses for the Leica, sold cheap or gave them away. I prefer making them RF coupled and with an adjustable aperture. But overall, they are not sharp lenses and have lots of distortion. Some people like that look. I can make pictures with the point of focus 1 foot behind the subject. I call it screwing up. Light leaks- I call defective camera that I repair. Soft-focus lens, with lots of distortion- Optics Experiment.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33192774@N08/3318307656/

But some photographers put my optics experiments to good use on cameras such as the Leica M8.

And the photo's shown in the link from the original OP look too sharp to be a Holga. At least the guy knows where the sweet spot for the point of focus is.

 

[Bobbie]

Furthermore, I'd suggest you started off somewhat on the wrong foot by suggesting that I had not looked at the series in question, when in fact I had.

Cheers,

R.

My apologies. I could not imagine anyone who HAD seen the images attacking them so vehemently.

I've just took a peak at the link... MY GOD... Those pictures are marvelous. Congratulation!

It does seem that mileages do vary.

 

[pmun]

Sharpness in photography is merely a convention or a fashion. There's nothing inherently 'technically correct' about a sharp photo. It just seems right because so many people do it that way.

Memphis' photos of children have a delightful feeling of innocence and softness about them that suits the subject matter well.

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[Roger Hicks]

I usually use lenses, but sometimes a bit of unpredictablity is fun and freeing.

Bessa R2m.

I'm not taking sides in the argument, but I don't always want sharp or I'd just use my dslr.

Mike[/QUOTE]

Dear Mike,

That really works for me.

But how 'unpredictable' was it really? Surely you had a pretty good idea, or at least hope, of what you would get, using the technique you chose.

So does a Holga user. All I'm querying is how appropriate a given visualization is to a given image.

Just about every year I go to Arles. There are scores of exhibitions there. Many are brilliant, and even more are complete rubbish, often because the photographer has locked into an intellectual but unfortunately unsuccessful preconception.

Part of good photography is seeing which of our 'brilliant ideas' work, and which don't, and why. Of course it's deeply personal, and we can only speak for ourselves; but let's be honest, most of us don't go to even 25 exhibitions a year, and try (as best we can) to measure our own work against those exhibitions. In fact, we're often hesitant to compare our own most recent work against our best (and I'm speaking personally here).

Cheers,

R.

 

[blackwave]

Roger, I respect your opinion that these type of photos don't do it for you for the stated reasons. They don't reach you emotionally, and there are personal reasons why they may or may not.

In the way that you don't see what unsharp or imperfect focus adds to a photo, I don't see what sharpness or perfect focus addsto a photo. It connects emotionally to the viewer or it doesn't. Personally, I don't know of any other merit that matters in the end.

$0.02

 

[Roger Hicks]

My apologies. I could not imagine anyone who HAD seen the images attacking them so vehemently.

Dear Bobbie,

Apologies cheerfully accepted. For me, that was't vehement. I like the pics. I just cannot see (literally) what they gain from being shot with a Holga. A Lyubitel maybe: the bare minimum required to give a good record. They are in their nature record shots; excellent, well-chosen record shots, but still record shots, of work-worn hands, hard-won crops and more.

I hope you will also accept my apologies if I seem too combative. We all have our own ways of presenting our arguments, and the internet is seldom as convivial and agreeable as sitting or standing around with glasses in our hands looking at real pictures.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I respect your opinion that these type of photos don't do it for you for the stated reasons. They don't reach you emotionally, and there are personal reasons why they may or may not.

In the way that you don't see what unsharp or imperfect focus adds to a photo, I don't see what sharpness or perfect focus addsto a photo. . . .

No, it's not that. Look at my previous post about the keyboard player. I believe it's harder to use unsharpness or poor focus than to use sharpness and good focus, and that the truck farm pictures gain nothing from refusing to be sharp -- whereas the keyboard player does. To be honest, I don't like some of Julia Margaret Cameron's sloppily focused portraits either, but I do really like some of Bill Brandt's out-of-focus images.

In other words, sharpness may or may not add to an image or detract from it. For these pictures, and as I say for the majority of Holga shots, I don't see what the unsharpness adds. But I've seen plenty of soft-focus/out of focus shots that really do work for me. I've even taken a few. But I think it's rare that anyone succeeds, and I don't think this series does. As I say, I like them as pictures. I just don't see what a Holga adds.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bobbie]

They are in their nature record shots; excellent, well-chosen record shots, but still record shots, of work-worn hands, hard-won crops and more.

Cheers,

R.

Well here we go disagreeing again.😀

I see them no more record shots as any photo is a record.
In fact, some, if not most of them I would consider "art", maybe even "fine art". Images for which the photographer has worked, worked hard, both before and after the "shot". Enormous social skills also.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well here we go disagreeing again.😀

I see them no more record shots as any photo is a record.
In fact, some, if not most of them I would consider "art", maybe even "fine art". Images for which the photographer has worked, worked hard, both before and after the "shot". Enormous social skills also.

Dear Bobbie,

A lot depends on how you define 'record'. In my book 'record' and 'fine art' are far from mutually exclusive. Bill Brandt again. Sebastiao Salgado. Depardon. Brassai. Tim Page. Lots more.

Textures of hands and crops; people; to me these are records, even as 'fine art'. The scope for departure from sharpness and record is not as great as it is in (say) a Rayograph or something highly staged or a composite print.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ducky]

Lovely discussion if a bit sharp here and there. One thing I do agree with, the shots of the farmers are unusually good for a Holga and I agree he has found the 'sweet spot' on the lens. I like the Holga, and the Diana, but prefer a bit more control so I can screw them up myself.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Please, if you are among those who evaluate photos by their technical qualities rather than the viewer emotion they evoke, this thread is not for you. Move on and save yourself the frustration.

What if the "viewer emotion" is frustration?

 

[Roger Hicks]

What if the "viewer emotion" is frustration?

Well, quite. But you are not supposed to feel that. You are supposed to take the photographer on his/her own terms, which in the eyes of some appears to preclude any other viewpoint. I really like Ducky's view that more control is better, so you can screw up the pictures yourself instead of relying on the camera.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bob Michaels]

<snip>
My suggestion is that for these pictures (a point I admit was not clear at first, but which I believe I have since clarified) I see no emotional or other advantage in using a Holga.<snip>
R.

Once again, I got no dog in this fight.

Perry Dilbeck to me that the reason he used a Holga for this series was that he felt his work had become "too static" (his term) and that the simple camera seemed to make his subjects more comfortable. It was not because he wanted lesser optical quality, it was because he felt the final result would benefit overall from use of the simplest of cameras. It was a conception in the mind of the photographer as well as in the mind of the subjects.

It is a thought process that I can understand even though it does not work for me to that same extent.

My initial post was simply to see if others here understood or espoused that concept. I certainly am not on a missionary trip and believe everyone needs to do what works for them.

 

[Bob Michaels]

What if the "viewer emotion" is frustration?

All viewer emotion is good. I have no problems measuring success by the level of emotion invoked, regardless of it being positive or negative. I will take a strong negative emotion over a lackluster positive one every time.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Once again, I got no dog in this fight.

Perry Dilbeck to me that the reason he used a Holga for this series was that he felt his work had become "too static" (his term) and that the simple camera seemed to make his subjects more comfortable. It was not because he wanted lesser optical quality, it was because he felt the final result would benefit overall from use of the simplest of cameras. It was a conception in the mind of the photographer as well as in the mind of the subjects.

It is a thought process that I can understand even though it does not work for me to that same extent.

My initial post was simply to see if others here understood or espoused that concept. I certainly am not on a missionary trip and believe everyone needs to do what works for them.

Dear Bob,

Absolutely! And you have had the advantage of seeing 16x20 prints, which we have not. All I'm saying is that on the evidence of what I see on the screen, I think he was wrong. This is something I feel quite often in Arles!

And of course it doesn't mean I'm right. There are at least three possibilities. Both he and I may be right; both he and I may be wrong; and one may be right and the other wrong (which is actually two possibilities). All possibilities should be aired.

Cheers,

R.