Holga hypocrisy?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 25, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, May 25, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/24/2011 10:25 PM, RichA wrote:
    > 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.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, May 25, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    otter Guest

    On May 24, 9:35 pm, PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 5/24/2011 10:25 PM, RichA wrote:
    >
    > > 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=385...

    >
    > 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.
    otter, May 25, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 24, 10:35 pm, PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 5/24/2011 10:25 PM, RichA wrote:
    >
    > > 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=385...

    >
    > 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.
    >
    > --
    > Peter


    It's not about the camera, fool. Which you would know if you actually
    read it.
    RichA, May 25, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    Peter Chant Guest

    PeterN wrote:

    > 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.
    >


    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

    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk
    Peter Chant, May 25, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    Peter Chant Guest

    RichA wrote:


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


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

    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk
    Peter Chant, May 25, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Peter Chant Guest

    bugbear wrote:


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


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

    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk
    Peter Chant, May 25, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 25, 5:55 am, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    > RichA wrote:
    > > 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.

    >
    > I'm surprised someone hasn't extended CHDK to implement
    > the Lomo effect as a built in on Canon cameras...
    >
    >   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?
    RichA, May 25, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On May 25, 5:55 am, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    >> RichA wrote:
    >> > 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.

    >>
    >> I'm surprised someone hasn't extended CHDK to implement
    >> the Lomo effect as a built in on Canon cameras...
    >>
    >>   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?
    Bruce, May 25, 2011
    #9
  10. On May 25, 1:10 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >On May 25, 5:55 am, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    > >> RichA wrote:
    > >> > 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.

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

    >
    > >> 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?


    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.
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 25, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >On May 25, 1:10 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> 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?

    >
    >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.



    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.


    >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.



    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)
    Bruce, May 25, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    shiva das Guest

    In article <>,
    Bruce <> wrote:

    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >On May 25, 5:55 am, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    > >> RichA wrote:
    > >> > 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.
    > >>
    > >> I'm surprised someone hasn't extended CHDK to implement
    > >> the Lomo effect as a built in on Canon cameras...
    > >>
    > >>   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?


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

    >
    > 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?


    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.
    shiva das, May 26, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    Mike Guest

    On 24/05/2011 10:25 PM, RichA wrote:
    > 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.
    >

    Doesn't Holga make the SD-1 for Sigma ;)

    Mike
    Mike, May 26, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Bruce <> wrote:
    >This FAQ was put together for the edification of new and "veteran"
    >contributors to this newsgroup.



    No. it wasn't. It was put together by a troll hiding behind someone
    else's identity and using an anonymous news server at:

    http://www.x-privat.org/

    The troll may think that he has successfully hidden his identity, but
    there are familiar characteristics on show that suggest who he is.

    When he was invited to kiss the Blarney Stone, he bit off a chunk and
    swallowed it whole. ;-)
    Bruce, May 26, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/26/2011 4:30 AM, bugbear wrote:
    > RichA wrote:
    >> On May 25, 5:55 am, bugbear<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    >>> RichA wrote:
    >>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> I'm surprised someone hasn't extended CHDK to implement
    >>> the Lomo effect as a built in on Canon cameras...
    >>>
    >>> 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?

    >
    > 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.
    >


    I once made a tongue-in-cheek comment to a modern artist with a block,
    who has regular gallery space, that he dip a sweaty tee shirt on his
    palette and put an elegant frame around it.
    The tee shirt as sold for $5,000.
    This leads us to the question of what is art. Does an accident prevent a
    great image from becoming art, or must the artist have planned it from
    the beginning.
    BTW the artist bought me a great steak dinner for the idea.



    --
    Peter
    PeterN, May 26, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    John Turco Guest

    PeterN wrote:

    <edited for brevity>

    > I once made a tongue-in-cheek comment to a modern artist with a block,
    > who has regular gallery space, that he dip a sweaty tee shirt on his
    > palette and put an elegant frame around it.
    > The tee shirt as sold for $5,000.
    > This leads us to the question of what is art. Does an accident prevent a
    > great image from becoming art, or must the artist have planned it from
    > the beginning.
    > BTW the artist bought me a great steak dinner for the idea.



    That cheapskate should've given you a >restaurant<, instead!

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Jun 30, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/30/2011 2:12 AM, John Turco wrote:
    > PeterN wrote:
    >
    > <edited for brevity>
    >
    >> I once made a tongue-in-cheek comment to a modern artist with a block,
    >> who has regular gallery space, that he dip a sweaty tee shirt on his
    >> palette and put an elegant frame around it.
    >> The tee shirt as sold for $5,000.
    >> This leads us to the question of what is art. Does an accident prevent a
    >> great image from becoming art, or must the artist have planned it from
    >> the beginning.
    >> BTW the artist bought me a great steak dinner for the idea.

    >
    >
    > That cheapskate should've given you a>restaurant<, instead!
    >

    He also sent me a ton of business. Over the years I probably got paid
    hundreds of thousands of dollars from people he introduced to me.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Jun 30, 2011
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ams67

    Microsoft Hypocrisy

    ams67, Feb 17, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    285
    ams67
    Feb 17, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page