B
Bobbie
Guest
I can't see where the question of right and wrong comes into the equation.
The guy took some photos. Either you like them or not.
Roger, tell me what he did wrong in your view, without using the word "sharp".
Bobbie.
More evocative photos by using a Holga or other simple camera / process.
- Thread starter Bob Michaels
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 68
- Views 6K
I can't see where the question of right and wrong comes into the equation.
The guy took some photos. Either you like them or not.
Roger, tell me what he did wrong in your view, without using the word "sharp".
Bobbie.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
B
Bobbie
Guest
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bobbie,
The secret lies in the words I THINK.
You say you're not here to argue (post 22) but is is beginning to look increasingly as if you are.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Roger: This the probably the reason we prefer this "artsy thing" over those fields where we received our professional training.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bob,
Yes. And I'm enjoying it, apart from attempts to prove me 'wrong'. I'm not. He's not. You're not. None of us is. We can have opinions, as in 'I think' but this is not an arena in which rigorous proof can be given or demanded.
Cheers,
R.
B
Bobbie
Guest
You think I am here to argue.
You think Perry Dilbeck is wrong.
"He can't be a man 'cus he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me" Jagger/Richards.
edit: This is the philo forum where ideas are exchanged?
Bobbie.
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Eh? I've lost track of you here.
Do you want to stop exchanging ideas? Do you want to stop thinking? Do you want me to stop thinking?
I don't have a great problem with what you think. I just think you're wrong. You apparently think I'm wrong too. Is this a problem for you?
R.
Last edited:
B
Bobbie
Guest
Good lord NO.
Though it seems you would like ME to stop:
I can accept your (or anyones) "opinion" on the images linked to but fail to understand how an artistic choice can be "wrong".
I don't much care for seafood, but it is not "wrong".
edit: After your edit I would ask: Am I wrong to dislike seafood?
Bobbie.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Blake: I don't quite look like that anymore. That little spot between my left eye and ear was a skin cancer that left a hole big enough to hold two half dollars by the time they removed it all. But now I have this marvelous story about making a brain cell donation to several who needed some more.
Blake make this photo in his late brother's coin laundry in a very interesting section of Memphis. The twin boys are Shane (l) and Shamar (r). They moved to Memphis from Hollywood FL six years ago. The adult gentleman is the male head of household but not their biological father.
Blake make this photo in his late brother's coin laundry in a very interesting section of Memphis. The twin boys are Shane (l) and Shamar (r). They moved to Memphis from Hollywood FL six years ago. The adult gentleman is the male head of household but not their biological father.
sometimes sharp works for me --- I still have fond memories of this day of shooting
pmun
Established
very good point - this makes me think of how undervalued 'negative' emotions/feelings are in viewing art such as fear, frustration, bewilderment or boredom. It's indifference that's the real enemy.
www.urbanpaths.net
pmun
Established
Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A. 
What if the "viewer emotion" is frustration?
As for how you take the photographer, that has no necessary connection with how you take the photograph. You may have no clue whatsoever about the photographer but still appreciate the photograph.
www.urbanpaths.net
What if the "viewer emotion" is frustration?
There is something inherently frustrating about photographs: as a viewer you are encouraged to entertain the idea of a distant reality but denied that reality at the same time. This is why there is tension between the way things look and how they are 'supposed' to look on a photograph.
As for how you take the photographer, that has no necessary connection with how you take the photograph. You may have no clue whatsoever about the photographer but still appreciate the photograph.
www.urbanpaths.net
phil devries
phil devries
simple cameras/process/photos
simple cameras/process/photos
To use your own words, "it depends". I like using one camera, one film, and generally one lens because I like to think I can approximate what it will produce photographically (within reason) in most situations I shoot in. That feels "right" to me. Particularly when I get a photograph that gives more than I expected. For my way of thinking/shooting, getting to know a simple combination of camera/lens/film imparts a sense of working towards mastering those 'simple' variables. Yes, the eye, the light and the timing are all critical, and that separates the pedestrian from the real photographers. The farmers essay shot with a Holga shows that well, IMO. High tech computer cameras are great inasmuch as they make those decisions for you of focus, exposure etc., and certainly I use some of them. But those features are probably more exciting for those who enjoy technical challenges. Personally I like it simple.
simple cameras/process/photos
To use your own words, "it depends". I like using one camera, one film, and generally one lens because I like to think I can approximate what it will produce photographically (within reason) in most situations I shoot in. That feels "right" to me. Particularly when I get a photograph that gives more than I expected. For my way of thinking/shooting, getting to know a simple combination of camera/lens/film imparts a sense of working towards mastering those 'simple' variables. Yes, the eye, the light and the timing are all critical, and that separates the pedestrian from the real photographers. The farmers essay shot with a Holga shows that well, IMO. High tech computer cameras are great inasmuch as they make those decisions for you of focus, exposure etc., and certainly I use some of them. But those features are probably more exciting for those who enjoy technical challenges. Personally I like it simple.
narsuitus
Well-known
“I am curious how many of you feel you can, or have the potential, to create images with more impact by using a really simple camera, Holga or otherwise.”
I cannot say that I can create images with more impact using a simple camera but I can say that there are times when I feel the need to get away from automatic/electronic cameras and use something simpler. When I get this back-to-basic feeling, I satisfy it with a couple of 4x5 inch pinhole cameras.
I have never used a Holga to satisfy this desire. I have used a Diana (the predecessor to the Holga). However, after I started using a “real” medium format camera, the thought loading a Diana (or a Holga) seemed like a waste of a good roll of film.
I cannot say that I can create images with more impact using a simple camera but I can say that there are times when I feel the need to get away from automatic/electronic cameras and use something simpler. When I get this back-to-basic feeling, I satisfy it with a couple of 4x5 inch pinhole cameras.
I have never used a Holga to satisfy this desire. I have used a Diana (the predecessor to the Holga). However, after I started using a “real” medium format camera, the thought loading a Diana (or a Holga) seemed like a waste of a good roll of film.
David R Munson
写真のオタク
Here's my take on Holga/Lomo/etc in terms of any mechanically-reductive approach to photography. For me, at least, it's a matter of how I am feeling, how I am seeing on a particular day. Some days, insane sharpness and precision are the name of the game. Other days I'd rather shoot with an old magnifying glass taped to a view camera. It comes down to what I feel is right for the images I want to make. It's a gut feeling. I can't necessarily explain it very well beyond that right now, but that's what it comes down to. It's a visceral thing. If you don't feel it when you look at the photographs, that's fine, but there's a good chance that the creator did.
Photography, nor any art form, is universal by any means. Every masterpiece has its constituent of haters. Every good photograph likely an even greater proportion thereof.
I see it as doing what you care about in a way that makes sense to you. That is, after all, what were all after. Isn't it?
Below are two images that fall short in a number of "technical" areas, but which I love. They are two of my favorite images. Do you, when viewing them, feel any portion of what I did when I created them? If so, maybe we share something in nature, intellect, or temperament. If not, oh well.
Photography, nor any art form, is universal by any means. Every masterpiece has its constituent of haters. Every good photograph likely an even greater proportion thereof.
I see it as doing what you care about in a way that makes sense to you. That is, after all, what were all after. Isn't it?
Below are two images that fall short in a number of "technical" areas, but which I love. They are two of my favorite images. Do you, when viewing them, feel any portion of what I did when I created them? If so, maybe we share something in nature, intellect, or temperament. If not, oh well.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I've been thinking more about this.
Which is easier? Taking a sharp picture with a decent camera?Or flaunting the shortcomings of an unreliable piece of junk?
I'd back the former. You need to be REALLY GOOD to take decent pictures with a Holga. Very few Holga users are. The pics linked in the original post are very good, but does the Holga add anything?
As I've said before, I don't see how. If you like mushy pictures, and are a gear head, maybe you'll see it. If you can't see the omitted middle* in the majority of modern art (of any epoch), maybe you'll see it. Otherwise: no.
*The omitted middle: much top-quality cutting edge art is 'shocking' or (conventionally) 'incompetent', therefore all 'shocking' or (conventionally) 'incompetent' art is top-quality cutting edge.
Cheers,
R.
Which is easier? Taking a sharp picture with a decent camera?Or flaunting the shortcomings of an unreliable piece of junk?
I'd back the former. You need to be REALLY GOOD to take decent pictures with a Holga. Very few Holga users are. The pics linked in the original post are very good, but does the Holga add anything?
As I've said before, I don't see how. If you like mushy pictures, and are a gear head, maybe you'll see it. If you can't see the omitted middle* in the majority of modern art (of any epoch), maybe you'll see it. Otherwise: no.
*The omitted middle: much top-quality cutting edge art is 'shocking' or (conventionally) 'incompetent', therefore all 'shocking' or (conventionally) 'incompetent' art is top-quality cutting edge.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
pmun
Established
Leica, (but DSLR is easiest). What's your point exactly (one that preferably hasn't been made before on this thread)?
www.urbanpaths.net
peterm1
Veteran
I believe strongly in photography as art. And I believe that the job of an artist is not to simply reproduce how something looks - its to evoke emotions in the viewer. For example if I photograph something when on holidays I want the photo to evoke how I felt when I was there - something that greatly transcends the technical challenge of making the photo. There are many paths to this - some chose to simplify. I actually probably complicate things in some ways as I use my normal rangefinder or DSLR cameras and then post process. Here are a couple I put up on Flickr yesterday. I do not know why Iike them - I only know I do. Most of my photos get some "doing over" - softening of colors, blurring of parts of the image, vignetting etc. And while this is different to a Holga it still comes from the same wellspring of creativity that drives those who use these cameras for their work. Perhaps I can say the destination is much the same, only the route is different.
samoksner
Who stole my light?
As someone that has to answer to an editor about perfect sharpness ALL the time, I can speak to how overated sharpness is in the grand scheme. However, I also understand the value of it as a way on creating an image.
A compromise must be made, IMO. And although it's not really the lack of sharpness that bothers me in a holga, i find the fact that each roll to be unpredictable to be unsuited for my sort of work.
I like to pull a roll out of my developing tank and have my heart racing to see if i got a beautiful moment, or a composition that was spot on. And the moment I see "that shot" (those who've pulled wet film out of dev tank know what I mean) I'm in heaven. With a holga, a camera that i must have put over a dozen rolls through, i found myself mostly excited because I was anticipating to find at least a decent exposure. Composing is difficult, even very approximate exposure is difficult, focusing is a joke. Is it simple? Yes, very, at the cost of all the other things that matter to me, i think so.
As a photographer for a newspaper, and as a street photographer, i work on both extremes: very sterile and technically good images, and personal images that require very little technical perfection. I work, or have worked with Nikon D200, D300, D700, Canon 5D, 1D MkII, Nikon film SLR, Leica M, Hasselblad 500, TLR, Holga, Point and Shoot digital, APS cameras...
Many of these were cameras that i borrowed from someone for a week, or a short fling that past, however, many of these did something that another camera did not as well. Shooting a hassleblad felt like perfection, no compromise on build quality, image quality, user experience... Using a Canon 5D was an epiphany as to what digital could really do. My Leica M6 is pure joy every time i use it, desperately simple (my meter died and I haven't bothered to change the batteries). I found a holga to be bothersome and to interfere with the photographs i wanted to take as opposed to allow me to see things differently. I found myself saying: " can't take this shots, it's too dark in here, can't take this shot, it's too bright out here, can't take this shot, it's too close, can't take this, i can't see what I'm looking at through the viewfinder...
And when i did get an image i liked, it never felt like an image that i wouldn't have been able to get with another camera. All in all, i found a holga to be a fun toy but a crappy tool. Give me a model that has a couple real shutter speeds and a halfway decent viewfinder and i'll try it again.
Their is a difference between simple and lack of control and predictability, the holga crossed that line (for me), but hey, some photogs, like the one mentioned at the top of this thread seems to use one quite well. I don't think however, looking at the images, that any of them benefit from being shot with a holga as opposed to say a mamiya 6 or 7.
Sorry for the rant 🙂
A compromise must be made, IMO. And although it's not really the lack of sharpness that bothers me in a holga, i find the fact that each roll to be unpredictable to be unsuited for my sort of work.
I like to pull a roll out of my developing tank and have my heart racing to see if i got a beautiful moment, or a composition that was spot on. And the moment I see "that shot" (those who've pulled wet film out of dev tank know what I mean) I'm in heaven. With a holga, a camera that i must have put over a dozen rolls through, i found myself mostly excited because I was anticipating to find at least a decent exposure. Composing is difficult, even very approximate exposure is difficult, focusing is a joke. Is it simple? Yes, very, at the cost of all the other things that matter to me, i think so.
As a photographer for a newspaper, and as a street photographer, i work on both extremes: very sterile and technically good images, and personal images that require very little technical perfection. I work, or have worked with Nikon D200, D300, D700, Canon 5D, 1D MkII, Nikon film SLR, Leica M, Hasselblad 500, TLR, Holga, Point and Shoot digital, APS cameras...
Many of these were cameras that i borrowed from someone for a week, or a short fling that past, however, many of these did something that another camera did not as well. Shooting a hassleblad felt like perfection, no compromise on build quality, image quality, user experience... Using a Canon 5D was an epiphany as to what digital could really do. My Leica M6 is pure joy every time i use it, desperately simple (my meter died and I haven't bothered to change the batteries). I found a holga to be bothersome and to interfere with the photographs i wanted to take as opposed to allow me to see things differently. I found myself saying: " can't take this shots, it's too dark in here, can't take this shot, it's too bright out here, can't take this shot, it's too close, can't take this, i can't see what I'm looking at through the viewfinder...
And when i did get an image i liked, it never felt like an image that i wouldn't have been able to get with another camera. All in all, i found a holga to be a fun toy but a crappy tool. Give me a model that has a couple real shutter speeds and a halfway decent viewfinder and i'll try it again.
Their is a difference between simple and lack of control and predictability, the holga crossed that line (for me), but hey, some photogs, like the one mentioned at the top of this thread seems to use one quite well. I don't think however, looking at the images, that any of them benefit from being shot with a holga as opposed to say a mamiya 6 or 7.
Sorry for the rant 🙂
Similar threads
