aren't holga photographs supposed to be, well, dreamy?

[maile_lani]

<p>i never really paid attention to how sharp my holga shots were until i started getting nice scans back from my photo lab. i'm including a non-editied crop of the scan and the full picture... it's kind of strange to me how the holga is marketed to give soft dreamy pictures, yet it's sharper than some of my $300 canon lenses... for a $20 camera it's darn good lol. has any one else had these sharp results from their holga? i've been thinking of getting a diana as i've read the photos are a lot softer, and i do love that dreamy look...</p>

<p><img src="http://www.emptycrowdedroom.com/holgacrop.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.emptycrowdedroom.com/empty/images/gallery/lomo/04.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="700" /></p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Depends on how close you get with the zone focus the film you use and how much after processing that gets done to it.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6237442-lg.jpg" alt="" width="511" height="519" /></p>

[randall ellis]

<p>They are sharper than they used to be, but you can always damage the lens a bit to make it more to your liking. I found that using a strong pencil (a 6H I believe) was enough to soften the edges quite nicely. I ran it 'round the outer edges of the lens to scratch the lens over and over until it built up to the effect that I wanted. Just remember when 'adjusting' the lens like this - it's a one way street, so go slowly and test often...</p>

<p>- Randy</p>

[jdrose]

<p>Quality control is not the most consistent. Sharper ones do slip through once in a while.</p>

[nika_lee]

<p>Yes, with Holgas it seems they do what they want, when they want, ha ha! But that's what makes them awesome. It will depend on a lot of things, lighting, film, etc. I've seen mixed results with Diana's as well, but it's worth a try.</p>

[j.w.]

<p>The size of 120 film helps to retain the overall image quality. If one were interested in lessening the quality of the image, you may want to try the "Blackbird Fly" series of 35mm square-format TLR plastic cameras, if for no other reason than it's smaller gauge film; however, I have no personal knowledge as to the quality of the optics as compared to the Holga.</p>

<p>~Joe</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>Here are the factors to consider:</p>

<p>Glass lens vs. plastic. The glass lens versions are sharper, although the plastic ones CAN be sharp.</p>

<p>Mask vs. no mask. If you use the mask, it crops some of the fuzzy dark edges off, meaning more of the image is sharp. If you remove the mask, there will be more fuzzy dark edges, making the whole image appear more fuzzy, as well as more wide-angle which helps "dreamy".</p>

<p>Precise focus vs. don't bother. I have a friend who calibrated his Holga to have distances on the focus ring so he could get accurate focus. Despite the vignette and the rather sour out-of-focus areas, the in-focus areas were indistinguishable from images he shot on his Rollei. Most Holga-philes know the "best" results come from not even bothering with focus... sorta similar to the haphazard results of cheap AF cameras that don't know how to focus properly. </p>

<p>If your $300 Canon lenses are not as sharp as a Holga, then you should send them samples and get your money back. Seriously.</p>

[alan_ginman]

<p>I don't know how much of a difference it would make but it might be worth looking into how much sharpening is being applied at the scanning and printing stages. This is one area where you don't want any sharpening applied.</p>

<p>Regards</p>

<p>Alan</p>

[keith selmes]

<p>You can adapt a Canon body to all sorts of old lenses, plastic lenses, pinholes, just about anything.<br>

Or just make some creative use of filters. Mess up some filters. That sort of thing.<br>

You don't get the fashionable clique thing of owning a Holga, might be worth a try though.</p><div></div>