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

[Roger Hicks]

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.

Those are my points too, plus the point that the original question (as I understood it) was twofold. First, are these pictures more evocative? (Not in my opinion: as you say, they'd lose nothing by being sharp). Second, can a 'simple' camera make pictures that are more evocative? (Here I attack the argument that a Holga is 'simple'. It's not. It's hard work, compared with a predictable, reliable camera).

Any camera can make good (or evocative) pictures in the hands of a good photographer. In the case of a Holga, he/she needs to be lucky as well.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

I believe strongly in photography as art. . . . Perhaps I can say the destination is much the same, only the route is different.

Dear Peter,

First, superb pictures.

Second, I agree completely with what you say.

All I'm trying to say is that a Holga is not in any way necessarily more evocative, empathic, or artistic than a decent camera. It can be used that way, by the right photographer. It can also be a worthless piece of junk turning out appalling pictures. In the original pictures in this thread, it was something in between. It neither wrecked the pictures, nor (in my view) added anything to them.

I do not attempt to derive a general rule from this: merely to answer the original question. I just re-read the first few posts. Perry Dilbeck believes he got better pictures this way. Maybe he did. But the question was how many of us believed we could get better pictures with a 'simpler' camera, and I stand by my original statement that choosing a Holga suggests certain things to me, not that these things are always the case.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[pmun]

So your position Roger, to be to the question:

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

Not necessarily any more evocative or simple than using a more sophisticated camera (which benefits from more control).

Fair?

By the way that last street photo Peter, is lovely - mysterious and warm.

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[Roger Hicks]

So your position Roger, to be to the question:

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

Not necessarily any more evocative or simple than using a more sophisticated camera (which benefits from more control).

Fair?

By the way that last street photo Peter, is lovely - mysterious and warm.

www.urbanpaths.net

Entirely fair.

Cheers,

R.

 

[samoksner]

Those are my points too, plus the point that the original question (as I understood it) was twofold. First, are these pictures more evocative? (Not in my opinion: as you say, they'd lose nothing by being sharp). Second, can a 'simple' camera make pictures that are more evocative? (Here I attack the argument that a Holga is 'simple'. It's not. It's hard work, compared with a predictable, reliable camera).

Any camera can make good (or evocative) pictures in the hands of a good photographer. In the case of a Holga, he/she needs to be lucky as well.

That puts it into perfect perspective right there!

To me, a simple camera is not one with very few controls that need to be changed but rather one that allows me to work and make photographs with the least interference and even encourages me to make a better image by the sheer pleasure of using the tool (anyone who's used a butter-smooth Leica or felt that stone solid clunck of a hasselblad or felt the punch of a speed graphic knows how good each shot feels). The camera that is seamless in it's intergration with my vision, my body, my mind and the environment is the simplest camera; in that sense, a Leica can be as simple as an 8*10 or a point and shoot. Surely the simplest camera for baseball, landscapes and travel is not the same.

 

[35mmdelux]

I bought a Holga at Freestyle, shot a roll, and threw it...away. I wont waste my time with such a tool, when I have a Hasselblad/Leica. Make your choices and go wit it.

Ive seen exc work with the Holga. Just not for me.

 

[JoeV]

I've not had the pleasure of shooting a Leica or Hasselblad; but I have and use both a Zorki IV and Bronica ETRS, which are fine tools. About the only Holgaesque image quality I can't readily duplicate with these other tools are the vignetting effect, which does seem to play in to the overall effect of some of the better "toy camera" images I've seen.

Parenthetically, I could add vignetting during the darkroom printing process from these above named cameras; I could also chose to misfocus and shake the camera as the shutter is being released. This doesn't have to be mere bad technique, as sometimes these effects do indeed work, albeit more often than not when it's unintentional.

I do peruse and enjoy the Lomo website, if for no other reason than the fact that I enjoy film photography of all kinds, and don't mind being soiled by the unwashed masses in evidence who lack the sophistication of fine instrumentation like Leicas and Hasselblads [insert humor here.]

And I've enjoyed Shots magazine for years, who recently have evolved beyond mere toy camera imagery, but still remain a classic periodical illustrating the potential of these useless tools.

~Joe

 

[johnastovall]

This is what's happens when you shoot with a Holga, Serendipity.

Multiple exposures, handheld, Leo on floor, Moon Light in window later.

If John Cage had used a camera, it would have been a Holga.

Holga the camera for Homo Ludens.

Leon at the door into summer

 

[Haigh]

Check my Holgas on Flickr ( Gary M4 ) and yes that is my M4 Leica. Check them on Leica Boutique (Gary Haigh). I have just made several colour books with iPhoto and not a single image is crisp. Don't know if that all means much to any of you.