Holgas etc. are overpriced. What instead to suggest to potential Holga owner?

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Cheap, the film's available, and the styling is close to my idea of perfection.</p><div></div>

[lachaine]

<p>There are many much cheaper sources. Of course, I wouldn't advise getting a Holga from the expensive branded outfits.</p>

<p>There are plenty of people who associate photography with the owning and collecting of quality equipment. Nothing wrong with that, but they are missing the point of using Dianas and Holgas. Neither is "lomography" the point.</p>

<p>With a Holga or equivalent, rather than the photographer matching a shutter speed, aperture and focal length to the subject, an experienced photogapher with a Holga matches the subject to the shutter speed, aperture and focal length. The variables at his or her disposal are the film type and speed, and the possibility of using filters effectively (they are easy to mount on them, even though there are no threads). It actually takes some understanding of photography to do this. Lomography can be done with a Holga, or any camera, including a cellphone. It's just point & shoot, really... but using a Holga is not necessarily lomography, no more than using a Hassy would be for the same kind of pictures.</p>

<p>It's about using minimal equipment to produce pictorial photographs, not good equipment to produce snapshots with outstanding technical quality, and I suppose that in a sense, it's also about making a statement against the established camera industry and the camera owner types who feed it. It's a continuation of the pictorialists versus group 64.</p>

<p>P.S. I've had lots of quality equipment, and I've had quite a few old box cameras. The latter can take pictures of the same subjects, but they do not provide the same results as a Holga in the hands of someone who knows what he is doing. And of course, if you want to be a post-processor who imitates it as opposed to a photographer who does it with the camera and the film, fine. It's just not my bag.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>You can pick up an old Hassy for a few hundred $ and you've got a classic that will teach you so much about photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OMG, the Hassie-addicts are everywhere. Shadforth, I don't think you grasp the concept of Lomography™ (<a href="http://www.lomography.com/">link</a>)?</p>

<p>If someone wanted a <strong>good</strong> camera with good optics and all the rest, there are thousands of wonderful film cameras out there, many of which actually sell on eBay for under US$30.</p>

[User_4525289]

<p>Spending $29.99 on Holga is not gona break the budget. However as an alternative I would think about Soviet Zaria camera. It does not have a rangefinder and it is a robust FED-2 under the skin. You can try then variety of M39 lenses just use the distance scale.</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

Well I rarely answer twice, but I have been thinking about this for about a month now! I don't get the difference that Pierre is explaining. I think we all accept the fundamental Pictorialist vs F64 argument and accept the basic tenets of these camps. I personally like both kinds (country and western..oops) I mean I don't maintain one is good the other not!

 

Very much as you described it, a "photographer" can achieve the (certain) results with a Holga and/OR use an equivalent.The point is he/she knows how to get the desired effect and what (kind of) equipment will do it. Using "classic" or vintage equipment appeals on many different levels. While one might take the attitude "look what I can do with very simple means", I don't think many of us are using film to snub the Foto industry. I want to avoid the stigma of gimmick and trend. A wave that that Holga is trying to ride! This wave does indeed exploit the industry snub, retro appeal, digital backlash call it what you want.I don't think anybody is bashing the "Holga" as a camera. Unfortunately I don't see that big of a difference in their marketing approach. as opposed to the "LOMO"style.

It's this idiot approach that makes me resentful. I thoroughly respect an artist with a vision achieving it with whatever means.but it's much like the car dealers ..we f*cked up and ordered too many cars, now we don't have enough room for the new inventory etc.. We can't mount a lens on a plastic body so therefore you benefit with light leaks! I am more than happy to make the best of the disadvantages or adapt when confronted with such things, but when they are marketed in this manner, I am insulted. If I found a real Diana or one of her cousins in a junk box at a flea market for a dollar I'd buy it, but I won't search out something bad on purpose and pay a premium price for it. The OP's friend wanted a good price on

a Holga and someone (has now) pointed him in the right direction. We all felt sorry for the poor guy who fell victim to the lure of the trendy gimmick and offered other ways to achieve this result. I don't resent the art or the style just the marketing!

 

I think it's like standing in line at the grocery store and there's Sponge Bob bubble gum for 1,00 and just plain ol' Hubba-Bubba for 30 cents. Your child sees the Sponge Bob ..Oh I want Sponge Bob bubble gum. Despite all your

arguments about more gum, better gum, you know the kid just wants the shiny SpongeBob wrapper and you'd better just be done with it! So back to my first post " Let him have it for chrissakes!"

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Agreeing with a previous post, at least the proliferation of Holgas are making people consume 120 film, so more power to them. The same thing has happened to Polaroid photography, with the Impossible Project films coming out. Just look to see what has happened to the price of SX70 cameras of late!<br>

My pick, by the way, will be any good Box Brownie, especially the nunber two's which take 120 film.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>'I don't think anybody is bashing the "Holga" as a camera. Unfortunately I don't see that big of a difference in their marketing approach. as opposed to the "LOMO"style.'</p>

<p>Since the 'Lomographic Society' adopted the Holga it's the same people marketing both, so the distinctions have become blurred, but people were doing serious work with the Holga long before the Lomo guys got on that particular bandwagon:</p>

<p>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/010706.htm</p>

<p>The original Diana/Holga thing seems like a genuine grassroots movement, with artists discovering the dubious potential of these cameras for themselves. 'Lomography', on the other hand, though presented as an artistic movement, seems to have been about shifting product for profit from the early days. Contrast the public image ("From the beginning, we were only a bunch of friends seeking a fun means of expression. We weren’t out to make money and that’s why people trusted us"):</p>

<p>http://www.cafebabel.co.uk/article/18124/wolfgang-stranziger-the-eye-catcher.html</p>

<p>with their response to a perceived competitor ("It is true that meanwhile our friends Putin and Klebanov (ex director of Lomo) are the leading people in Russia and it is true that we and our Russian friends do not like our business to be disturbed."):</p>

<p>http://users.boardnation.com/~lomomanila/index.php?board=9;action=display;threadid=26</p>

<p>'Lomographers' have produced some great images, of course (as well as plenty of worthless ones) and there is something refreshing about the general approach (while anything that helps keep film alive can't be all bad). But the notion that this style of photography can only be done with an 'approved' camera distributed by the LS (let alone the claim that "The lomo enables everyone to be artistic") is obviously bogus. And it's hilarious that they can flog a Lubitel for more than a decent Rolleiflex, or their new cheapened copy of the Lomo LC-A for 4x the price of a Rollei or Minox 35.</p>

[alan_rockwood]

<p>Speaking of respooling 120 film onto 620 spools, and the problem of conserving 620 spools, does anyone respool the 620 film back to 120 spools after it is shot? That way you don't have to worry if the processor will send back the 620 spools.</p>

[john_c16]

<p>Holgas are quite fun, just don't buy one through the overpriced lomo website. Freestyle usually has the best prices on them. I have 4 Holgas and 1-1/2 Dories (diana clones). I started using Holgas long before Lomo got a hold of them and then the Holga company started in selling them with the most fun mods already done. They really took the fun out of them when you didn't have to epoxy in a tripod socket anymore or drill holes for a bulb shutter. 3 of my holgas are painted and 1 has the Dories lens barrel epoxied to it. The dories was 4.5x4.5 on 120 film instead of 6x6. toycamera.com is not what it used to be, but it's a good reference for anything having to do with toy cameras. I never understood the whole 'lomo' movement and it kind of disturbed me that people really though being a photographer was 'capturing' a light post with sky and a big red streak across the middle of the frame. Real panoramas with holgas by overlapping frames was one of my favorite experiments with a holga - 6x6 mask on 6x4.5 frame numbers and 44 degrees rotation on a tripod for 3 shots (or just guessing handheld made it interesting). </p>

 

[paul_goutiere]

<p>What we need is a Holga plug in for Photoshop.<br>

http://www.holgablog.com/2008/11/03/holgalomo-photoshop-pluginaction-download/</p>