outside my house. Not sure how I didn’t get the edge of the roof in the frame . . .
from a roll of Holga-riffic images taken during the snowstorm of mid-December.
I’m starting to tire of the chanciness of the Holga, the missed images. Some of this roll looks fine, some is way underexposed. Same day, same light. [grumble]
8 Comments
Another nice shot.
Holga shots have a certain quality, to be sure, but I wonder: Is it more valid artistically to shoot with a Holga than to take shots with another camera and then apply a vignetting effect? (Whether in Photoshop or on the enlarger or whatever.) I mean, it’s like the Holga has a built-in special effect.
I have a feeling that purists would pooh-pooh the idea of applying post-exposure effects, but is there any real conceptual difference, especially if the shots were taken with every intention of applying the Holga-esque effects to them?
Black & white + high contrast + high f-stop + vignetting = Holga effect
I’m not trying to be provocative and I’m not anti-Holga — really! I guess that I’m wondering if anyone else sees the Holga as a sort of special effect camera and how they feel about applying similar effects later.
Part of the charm of the Holga, if it has any, is its limitations: you can’t take a well-exposed shot and then obscure or alter it to get an effect. You get what you get. All of them are subtly different as well, so a post-processing effect would be a control panel more than a switch (add vignetting, subtract contrast, add blurry focus, add a lightleak . . . ). Someone’s probably making one right now ;-)
The Holga aesthetic is really a lot like pinhole in that you have a limited or constrained tool and you have to make choices — or guesses — as to how to get an image out of it. You could take action shots with a Holga, for example, but with a pinhole, they might be unrecognizable blurs. At the same time a pinhole landscape might be amazing, with lots of depth of field and a more realistic tonal palette than a plastic-lensed camera.
And Nikon D80 would handle both just fine as crisp, clear images, but how interesting would they be?
Disclaimer: I’m no purist and I work in Photoshop all day long. I love Photoshop.
Perhaps the result would be similar. But then, what’s the point of even using film? One could use a digital camera and pile on effects ad hoc to regularly achieve the desired—even previsualized—results.
It’s unlikely anyone would use software (today) to emulate images from a leica or a hasselblad. I think the idea is, whether modifying the image is perceived as destroying it or improving it, the qualities of any given camera/lens combo affect results.
What’s the point in drinking coffee when you could add caffeine directly to you bloodstream? Though in the future, there will be an “make hassleblad and an “add caffeine” filter in Photoshop. :)
Holgas are really finicky. I just put the Holga down for a while and pick up something else when it starts to feel chancy.
Yes, what *is* the point of using film? Just kidding. ;-)
Regarding a D80, Paul, you can fit a pinhole lens (or lenscap) to one of them, too. So if it’s all about the lens, there’s no difference.
We might ask how a Holga constrains one’s choices more than a digicam does? The digital camera can theoretically be equipped with a lens similar to the Holga’s (whatever that is), and the exposure can be set to manual (for the element of chance). Maybe the “problem” is that no such lens exists. Hey, there’s a market opportunity! LOL
If it’s about chance, well, you can roll dice to select digital images for deleting or keeping. You could also roll dice to determine numbers to plug into a Levels adjustment in Photoshop — don’t look, just apply these values — thus randomizing the exposure.
Well, I’m sure that you guys are tiring of what must seem like trolling (although Paul surely knows better), but thanks for your indulgence. I’m not even sure what my point was, anymore; I guess that I was wondering how to enjoy the odd benefits of a Holga without buying one.
As for coffee, I drink it for the caffeine *and* the taste (I even drink decaf now and then). But I don’t have to grow the beans and roast them myself to enjoy it. :-)
Just to show that different fields of art deal with some of the same issues, check out the second paragraph of this article:
http://www.gearwire.com/robert-rich-sampling-vintage-gear.html
And best that I don’t get started on a discussion of “lo-fi” recordings…
John, technically I’m trolling too. I’ve never actually met Paul.
I’ve recorded music to analog tape through a menagerie of old gear, (4 tracks to 2″ tape) and I also use ProTools too. I have a dslr and and a collection of old, what some might consider “crappy” cameras. The difference between using great preamps and software that emulates a Neve is immeasurable.
I’m not suggesting anyone should overpay for vintage gear, but a Holga can be had for about $20. I could see resisting if they were expensive. If it’s the capture/process/scan that’s holding you back, here’s a DIY hack for Holga lens mounted on a Canon dslr…
I like your rebuttal to the coffee analogy, but I didn’t build the Holga factory in China either. :)
Gosh, you step out to burn some film and what happens?
Yeah, I agree with all of it, even the parts that contradict each other. I especially liked the Robert Rich stuff: he’s got it exactly right. Constraints drive creativity. Not that I think everyone who likes photography should start with a Holga or a K1000 but starting with D80 might make it harder to learn the basics, with all the bells and whistles.
segueing into music, this is why I am more interested in building one of those $5 crackerbox amps in MAKE. Playing around in GarageBand is unsatisfying to me. I just want to bash some stuff out. Now, if we can just get a HOWTO on making a decent microphone, we’re all set.
If the $20 Holga was the end of the story, no problem. But start adding film and processing fees, and suddenly it’s a real hobby. Whereas I’ve already got a digicam and Photoshop.
Having recorded on 8-track 1/2″ tape as well as in ProTools, I can attest that the process is different. I suppose that shooting film vs digital is different for similar reasons. A “take” or “shot” on analog media represents a greater committment.
Meanwhile, you want a mic? They’ve gotten really cheap (can you say “Made in China”?). Want to go in on a set of these?
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/?sku=270352
I’m sure they’ll win no awards, but they don’t come much cheaper ‘n that! According to a Netizen I’m acquainted with, these have “good bang for the buck”. Given the low bucks, that’s not necessarily saying much… ;-)
Post a Comment