File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
A b/w medium format (120) roll I shot last spring. Thinking about getting back into street photography with my Holga.

Any other primarily b/w toy camera photographers here?
>> Anonymous
as of next month i will be.

i havent shot film since high school (3+ years ago) and i am STOKED to start shooting nice-ass slide film through a shitty toy camera and have it cross processed to hell.

i am just sick of photoshop, you know? it makes shit pictures awesome.
>> des
>>52826
irony get
>> Anonymous
>>52838

i guess.

i just want some limits to force me to get better at photography.
and i know a lot of people say that the toy camera effects are just cheap gimmicks, but really i just want a no nonsense simple to use medium format camera.

and i have no film scanner, so i will be forced to just print whatever i come up with.
>> Anonymous
>>52826
you could...you know...not photoshop everything and use that as the limit to force yourself to get better.
>> Macheath
>>53312
You want a limit? Shoot with primes. Don't have a prime? Simulate it by shooting at only one focal length.

Not to sound rude, as I'm a noob, but I find a crappy camera like the Holga 120 to conflict with the idea of "no nonsense."
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>53324
QFT.

Also try getting a tiny-ass little card, like a 32M or something, so every shot you take counts.
>> Anonymous
>>53312
There was a thread recently about twin-lens reflex cameras, where it was reported a medium format TLR can be had for about forty dollars on E-Bay.

That's about the price of a Holga, isn't it? Now, which would you rather have? A camera designed poorly, and adopted by a bunch of ersatz hipster artists specifically because it ruins every photograph it takes, or a camera real photographers use to take real photographs?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>53359
Holgas are going for about $20 at the high end, and TLRs for about $40 at the low end.

Still, I think it's worth it to go for the TLR unless you really want to go for the lomo aesthetic.
>> Anonymous
>>53313

true i guess, but to get the interesting colors that film gives i have to photoshop. i have actually only gotten two shots out of THOUSANDS that before any sort degree of photoshoopery has truly captured the feeling of the scene.

when i was shooting film i had MUCH better luck, even though it was shitty bulk b&w shit.

i just want a change of pace.
>> Anonymous
>>53324

i have one of those "prosumer" cameras and rarely use the optical zoom. i rarely get sharp shots if i use the zoom.

>>53359
>>53362

i have seen image tests of a holga versus i think it was a seagull, and honestly the quality difference didnt bother me too much.

http://www.lomography.com/seagull.vs.holga/

so yeah, i would rather have a holga than a cheap tlr.
>> Anonymous
>>53367
>http://www.lomography.com/

Lomography is a company in the business of selling cameras to people who want to do Holga stuff. They probably did something stupid to the film on the TLR.

Does someone hear have a photograph on their hard drive taken with a TLR?
>> Anonymous
>>53379

fucking idiot.
dont talk to me about lomography.com like i dont know what they are.

the point of the comparison is this: the holga may be a toy with a questionable build quality, but that doesnt mean it wont take good pictures.

you fucking TLR fags can suck my fucking dick because honestly, i dont give a fuck if a shitty TLR is marginally better than a holga.

if you fucking look at thos pictures you will notice that the holga shots look GOOD.

the. end.
>> Anonymous
>>53380
First of all, don't get hostile.

Second, yes, they look good in that one particular style of photography. That doesn't mean I would consider a Holga the way to start shooting medium format. You will be able to do one style and one style only of photography with a Holga. There is nothing stopping you from doing Holga-style photography with a TLR. Fuck up the film and put a bunch of clear filters on the front to get it to vignette, and you have Holga style photography.

Third, the TLRs are cheap because they are old, not because they are shitty.

Do what you want, but when you want to make a decent portrait of a friend, a landscape, or something else I would imagine someone would use a MF camera for, you'll find that it'll be ruined by light leaks, a plastic lens, and vignetting.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>53379
Yep. Just got done scanning this.

Taken with my Yashica A TLR (which was Yashica's really low end model from the 1960s), which I got off of eBay for about $40. Film was Fuji Velvia 100.
>> Anonymous
>>53384
Great, they got it to you.

Pretty good, too, though I think it would have been better a bit of an angle and at the front of the bus.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>53380
Woah, way too hostile. Gotta be a troll.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>53385
Yeah, that was my original plan. Then I saw the reflection of the bus in the water and decided to go with that instead.
>> elf_man
>>53384
I noticed a lot of your velvia shots have a purple cast. What's up with that?
Nice shot though.
>> Anonymous
>>53380
The point is, everything in the world is at least marginally better than Holga. Even your mom.

Also, lol internet rage.
>> Anonymous
>>53391
I don't think he's a troll. It seems like he's a genuinely pissed-off, sincere, poster. Look at his past posts. Same writing style, pretty obviously genuine. It's just he's angry in that one.

>>53392
The reflection didn't end up noticable enough for that to work. But, hey, finding out something didn't work too late is something we all have happen to us.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>53395
Either bad exposing or bad developing. Not sure which. I think bad exposing in this particular case, since I was shooting from the hip without any light metering using the sunny16 rule. Should've given it an extra stop or so of exposure.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>53397
Yeah, but when you combine the sudden and crazy shift to "RAAAR I AM ANGRY ON TEH INTARNETS!" with the "Holgas produce just as high quality pictures as real cameras" assertion?

I don't think anyone could seriously think that the fuzzy, blurry, nothing-is-quite-in-focus, light-leak'd photos from a Holga are even in the same league, quality-wise, as those produced by a TLR--even a cheapass one like a Lubitel or a Seagull. They're like the difference between a webcam and a digital SLR, not 'marginally better', and even the lomo page shows that (at least in terms of the vignetting and focus issues. It doesn't show how poor the Holga is at capturing detail compared to a "real" camera, since all of the shots are compressed for the web).
>> Anonymous
>>53486
He's talking about their artistic quality, I think. I trust that no one could be so stupid as to asser technical quality to a Holga.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>53530
See, I'd have thought that too, but then he said, quote:
>you fucking TLR fags can suck my fucking dick because honestly, i dont give a fuck if a shitty TLR is marginally better than a holga.
Which really makes me think we're being trolled.
>> Anonymous
>>53531
>>53531

I think he might think that every TLR produces photographs like the ones Lomography produced.