WOCA?

I would like to know if the WOCA is better than the holga, beings it

has a glass lens?

Thanks!

Well, better is a relative term when talking about the Holga isn't it? You can run a gallery search to see pictures taken on a Woca, that'll probably help.

Well, the WOCA might be better, but that might make it worse. Or maybe its worse which would make it better. If its good, that might be bad or vice versa. You see, such cameras as the Holga and WOCA are so popular because they aren't very good which means they should be unpopular but they aren't. Neither are reliable, but that doesn't matter. Or maybe it does matter because that is what makes them good. They are both cheap which makes them sort of an elitist kind of thing. Usually elitism goes along with being expensive and of extremely high quality, but in this case being expensive is bad and low quality is good. Those who use the Holga/WOCA are sort of like the Leicaphiles. Or maybe they're the opposite of the Leicaphiles which makes them just alike. In any case, whichever you decide to use, get at least a half dozen of them.

Your view of the world is close to identical to mine.

 

Out of cornfusion come claratin.

 

Joseph Heller lives on.

 

OTOH - I have a hard enough time making good images on decent equipment, much less the flotsam of the artistic world.

 

I'll stick with my Nikon, Zeiss Ikon, Speed Graphic, Yashica TLR world. I can always make crappy looking images, after scanning, on the computer.

 

tim in san jose

Long live DADA!

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1177253&size=lg"">

 

Shot with Holgamod (standard plastic lens).

 

<br>

<br>

As you know, most people who pick up the Holga don't normally worry about which lens has better MTF curves or bokeh. They use the Holga to take advantage of it's poor focus, vignetting, light leaks, lack of flat film plane etc. Therefore, using the WOCA with it's glass lens may actually lessen the desired "Holga" or Diana effect. In fact, legend has it that some Holga users buy many bodies to find the right signature lens or will even bake their lens @ 400 degrees in the oven to worsen it's performance. <br><br>

Some people like myself, find the Holga's cheap plastic lens still too perfect. For example in my Corn Cob building picture, I tried to achieve a greater blur by setting the focus @ 3 feet. <br><br>

 

There is a photographer Betsy Bell (check www.photographyroom.com ) who is able to achieve really blurred Holga images. I suspect she either uses vaseline, photoshop, or the baking method. A Holga out of the box can't achieve those great effects.

Blast it! I wish I had a steam roller to alter the focal length of my WOlga. Baking sounds good, but perhaps not up to acheiving adequately bad (read good) images. The search goes on. I suppose attacking the lens with steel wool is passe.

cheers,

Joe S.

Thanks all. I'm well aware of what the Holga produces, but was unaware of what the WOCA produces and wanted to compare notes with other "Artistic" minds who use either the two. Thank you very much for sharing the image and your imput, and just a little note to Tim.

 

There is no such thing as a "Crappy" image. Art is subjective and no matter "What" camera it is you use, if you're not an artist, your not an artist and having a Nikon will not make you one.

 

"The virtue of the camera is not the power it has to transform the photographer into an artist, but the impulse it gives him to keep on looking." "No photographer is as good as the simplest camera."

Joe,

 

I am sure you're being facetious, but if you're like me you give up on your Holga and you make your own lens to get your desired "bad" effect.

<br>

<br>

The problem with baking, vaseline, steel wool is you can't control accurately control your blur effect. So, I made my own version of Mark Tucker's plungercam by duck taping a Rodenstock 6x6 3x lens on to my Hasselblad and then taped on a negative diopter (zeiss distar 3) in front of the loupe in order to facilitate focusing @ infinity. So, now by pushing, pulling or tilting the loupe lens I can selectively focus my image, and severely blur everything else. I can't afford a flexbody or a Zoerk MFS adapater, so this is my woca alternative. Maybe now it is too bad or not good enough...

<br><br>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1358829&size=md"">

It's my image and iffum I want to label it crappy I will. I never claimed any of your or any other Holga/WOCA shooters images were crappy, just mine.

 

You can make diffused, soft, out of focus, looking images from any good negative using any good imaging sofware, but going the other way is a bit harder.

 

I never claimed to be an artist, see my original reply, but I pride myself on the technical side of my photography. Call me anally obsessed if you want.

 

I saw enough bad photography at my photography school in the mid 80s by "Artists" who couldn't figure out how to pull a decent negative out of their camera, nor a decent print out of any negative they had at hand.

 

The other side of the coin is, even a Holga or WOCA can produce an image. So it's photography as you like it. Even I like some experimental aspects of the art. Like pinhole.

 

Life's too short to get upset at anothers evaluation of your chosen artform.

No offence was meant, I hope you'll realize, none should be taken.

 

tim

How come there is no Holga/WOCA/Diana or toy camera category in the archives ?

There should be a "toy camera" or "Diana-like" category to cover work made through these means. I just recently acquired a Windsor #151 (exact Diana replica), and I am having a great time with it. It has really helped me learn how to develop my own "vision" and not worry so much about technical adjustments. I think toy cameras are great learning tools, and as with many others, I find the spontenaity of shooting with the Windsor starting to influence my other medium format shooting, which I am enjoying even more now.

"It has really helped me learn how to develop my own "vision" and not worry so much about technical adjustments." I agree RJ. If I have to spend too much time on the technical aspect when it comes to capturing one image, it's not worth it to me. Just like PS. Can't see spending hours upon hours adjusting and manipulating an image that turns out looking nothing like what it was I captured. I hardly have the time personally myself to get out and shoot as it is. The last thing I want is to spend MORE time adjusting. That's what I like about the Holga. Allows me to get creative in a simple, less complex way. Never tried the WOCA, but after using a friends Holga, I think I'll go with that. Thanks for all the responses, didn't think it would generate so much attention. Thanks again-

Jenn

I havent actually used a WOCA, but I did have an Agfa Isola with a single element glass lens. It was too sharp for holga/diana type images and too soft for sharp images. Also it had no vignetting. For a fraction of the price of a holga (Huh???) you can purchase a mouldy old box brownie. The mouldier the better, up to a point you must detirmine yourself. These can be a lot of fun because nobody under the age of fifty believes it is a camera. Try to find a 120 version if you can. These don't vignette by themselves but you could always make your own vignettes in front of the lens.

J Lynn, I'm sure that the INTENT of the glass lens is to be a step up in quality. However, both glass lenses and plastic lenses come in a full range of qualities from "excellent" to "putrid", and I have no idea what's in the Wocas. One other consideration: The glass lens should be more resistant to cleaning marks over time.

 

Also- whoever mentioned the "Windsor" up there- where do you buy those? I didn't see much on the internet for them.

I just happen to luck out and find one of these on eBay a couple of weeks ago. Even though the Windsor is an exact replica of a Diana #151 (and I mean *exact*), they won't go for as much money as the "name" Dianas. At any given time there are a dozen Dianas on eBay, many going for at least $40 and higher.

 

My Windsor came in its original box and instructions and cheesy lens cap (like you really need one) for $24, much less than the Dianas. I love it! Just yesterday I shot a roll of expired Kodak E100S and Kodak 64T at the Nationakl Arboretum -- I'll have the slides later today. The plastic cameras are really liberating, and I'm definitley hooked.

I've recently discovered how economical outdated film can be for use in toy cameras. I buy a bunch at the local photo swaps and usually get perfectly fine film for 75% less than the retail price. Plus, using toy cameras for me is all about experimentation and fun, and I don't care if the film has lost any of its punch -- who would know the difference? :-)