Holga hypocrisy?

First, this from Holga:

I'm afraid to say that until this very moment they have been closed.
The unassuming Holga is here to save you from a future of digital
pixels and images shared on small screens on cameras or phones.

http://microsites.lomography.com/holga/

Now this!!!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1041&message=38507898&changemode=1

 

It is a great camera for learning the basics of art photography,
including composition. It is inexpensive.
If you don't like it don't buy one. Nobody expects you to learn
anything, anyway.

 

Did you look at the second link? It is a little funny.

 

It's not about the camera, fool. Which you would know if you actually
read it.

 

But there are approximately 70 years worth of second hand cameras out there
that are light tight and generally focus better and are inexpensive. As far
as just concentrating on composition - the basic compacts do that - you have
a shutter release button to press and not much else. They must be cheap in
the flea markets if you can't just scrounge one off of someone.

Pete

 

RichA wrote:

<troll>Are you BA Baracus</troll> ;-)

 

I'm surprised someone hasn't extended CHDK to implement
the Lomo effect as a built in on Canon cameras...

BugBear

 

That's OK for the individual but what if you're running a class or
teaching photography
to more than one person at a time it's nice to have identical
equipment.
i.e you buy 30 cameras one for each student and at those prices you
can have spares
and being able to hold up one camera and show how to load film in it
is far easier
than going around to 30 different cameras showing each student
individually how to
load the film or any other aspect of photography.
I'd also buy the ugliest the blue/yellow makes them less likely to
'migrate'
from the classroom.
I'd also avoid hello kitty cameras and Nikes etc.. for the above
reasons.

 

bugbear wrote:

Better done in the digital darkroom as post processing as it is reversable?

 

Fair point, was not thinking about that situation.

 

That's completely against the Lomo philosophy.

Which is to be absurd, 'cos that's "art".

And they can charge big bucks for it.

BugBear

 

Gimmicks like using intentionally crappy lenses are good for about 10
minutes. But do you really want to stare at something like that on
your wall for months?

 

A camera with a decent lens can easily be degraded to Holga
"standards" by using a glass filter and Vaseline. Using a Holga
camera always gives low standards without any hope of improvement.

What is the point?

I feel the same way about LensBaby. The LensBaby lenses are much
better than the Holga lens but they are still optically very poor. And
they cost more. We don't sell many.

Again, what is the point?

I cannot see the attraction of a camera or lens that always gives bad
results. Where is the "fun" in that?

 

I know. The Holga though, is used as a teaching camera because it is a
equalizer. If I am teaching basic composition and visualization it is
easier to keep the emphasis on those topics, rather than features. Of
course there are much better cameras out there, many of which have more
features and cost less.

 

Nikon sells a couple of "DC" lenses which, for a thousand dollars or
so, let you
introduce small amounts of controlled...coma, I think? Some "bad"
optical effect, anyway.
They're used to make portraits look better.

Which is to say that many photographers think in artistic rather than
technical terms; what's "good" artistically may come from something
that is "bad" technically.

 

I know - I owned one for a couple of years and used it professionally.
It was a superlative lens. There was definitely no "bad" optical
effect involved.

Lenses that produce smooth background bokeh are in great demand for
portraiture because defocused areas behind the subject do not detract
from the subject. However, these lenses tend to display harsh
foreground bokeh.

Nikon's defocus control (DC) lenses allow you to choose where the
smooth bokeh goes - either behind the subject, in front of the
subject, or some value of both. You simply turn the DC ring then
refocus. It works beautifully and the optical performance of the lens
remains very good regardless of where you choose to "put the bokeh".

I sold the lens for two reasons. First, I found that I rarely wanted
anything other than smooth background bokeh, so the added complication
didn't suit my work. Second, the focal length of the lens I used is,
at 135mm, unsuited for classic studio portraiture (unless you and/or
your subject happen to be Japanese*).

There was also a 105mm version of the DC lens which would have been
better suited to the job, but I couldn't get hold of a used example at
the time. By the time I decided to sell the 135mm, I realised that I
simply didn't need the DC feature. The 105mm f/2.5 AI-S Nikkor was a
much better choice.

You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some
of the people all of the time ... ;-)


* For some reason, the Japanese strongly prefer 135mm for "classic"
portraiture whereas focal lengths between 85mm and 105mm are preferred
in Europe and the USA. Tastes differ.

(all focal lengths quoted are for full frame digital or 35mm film)

 

Apparently not everyone in the world shares your opinion. Obviously
enough people think there is a point that the Holga hasn't been
discontinued.

Indeed. So ... you probably shouldn't buy a Holga or a Lens Baby, as you
most definitely won't enjoy them. It's safe to say that not everyone
defines "bad results" the way you do.

 

Doesn't Holga make the SD-1 for Sigma

Mike

 

Perhaps I should have been explicit (but it spoils the wit).

I don't think it's a good idea.

I'm just surprised someone hasn't done it.

BugBear