Retro Digicam...Digital Holga?, article.
Sometimes I feel like going super-simple. It can be creatively freeing. I once photographed during a vacation only with disposable cameras.
I think the future will feature more cheap and simple digicams.
BTW, the Holga, like the Diana, is a super-cheap film camera, gawd-awful image quality, but some artists use that to their advantage.
6 comments:
The styling is perfect, too, looks like a lot of 35mm cameras from that era. I don't think we should expect the light leaks, vignetting, and other things many people love about the Holga and other plastic cameras, but who knows?
If nothing else, this Yashica (nice to see that name out there, too!) appears to be mod-able, one of the great things about Holgas.
"I don't think we should expect the light leaks, vignetting, and other things many people love about the Holga and other plastic cameras"
... yes, that's the thing. What is it we love about them exactly. And how can it be replicated? And *should* it be replicated, would it be the same?
Good question. I just shot my 50th roll of (B&W) film this year. I've done so primarily through an old Canon Elan IIe body because it uses all the same EOS lenses I use for digital, but also with a Super Ricohflex TLR, a Ricoh 35 ZF, a Canon AE-1, a Kodak Tourist II, and Holga (both 6x6 and modified for 35mm).
Why film, and why now? I don't know. But it's had me thinking more about photography's past, and in my current state of mind that new Yashica digicam appeals to me.
As for trying to replicate the Holga, I don't think that's a worthwhile pursuit. A Holga's a Holga. It gives you pretty crappy images. But sometimes they're so crappy they're cool. Probably you could take a perfectly nice photo, jack around with it in Photoshop for a while, and come up with a Holga-like look. Then you could save that as an action and make all your photos look that way. But isn't that silly?
I like that the Yashica is only 5MP, looks like a tourist cam from the '70s, and appears to have that "near or far" zone-focus thing going on.
"Probably you could take a perfectly nice photo, jack around with it in Photoshop for a while, and come up with a Holga-like look. Then you could save that as an action and make all your photos look that way. But isn't that silly?"
That's the question. I've had the same thought. It does not seem quite the same. But why not? Using a Holga when perfect image quality does not cost any more, is also artificial...
Eolake said, "Using a Holga when perfect image quality does not cost any more, is also artificial..."
And so what if it is artificial? Why would you paint a picture when you could photograph a scene and get "perfect image quality", a perfect representation? Is painting/art therefore also artificial?
Why would you hand-write an invitation or a birthday card for a loved one when you could send an Evite or an on-line card that would be ever so much easier to read (given my poor handwriting, anyway). Is a hand-written note artificial?
Eolake, I disagree.
That's all fine, I just struggle to see why digitally created imperfection is any different really.
Post a Comment