The No-nonsense truth about Holga Cameras

Very interesting.

I love the "There's no fun to be had here only pain and misery." What more do we need :D

My parents had a Diana but I don't remember them ever using it. Photography was an expensive thing back then.
 
Last edited:
"Are you going to be in focus?" That doesn't matter - it's a Holger, a CLO.

At least the Cosmic Symbol I had once took 135 so I could get 36 'photographs' to put in the bin.
 
I think the video is a little unfair on the Holga. While I like the Naked Photographer's channel, he didn't really try to use the camera to it's strengths (those strengths being what, in another camera, would be seen as flaws) - the vignetting and the focus fall off can produce lovely results when used with the right subject in the right light IMO. He photographed a bunch of largely uninteresting compositions that pretty much any camera would have struggled to make look interesting.

Michael Kenna's book "Holga" is full of beautiful photographs taken with the camera.

Here're a few taken with mine that I was pleased with:


Bathroom mirror by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr


Distant figure on a snowy trail by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr


Living spaces by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr


FILM - Bandstand by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr


FILM - The path untaken by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
I get the feeling the whole review is a bit "tongue in cheek". I've suffered shooting Zenits recently because they have awful handling; so bad they make Prakticas feel luxurious :oops: :$. I get what he is saying in that with no controls you have no control and the results will be unpredictable.
 
As FishyFish demonstrated, if you're able to 'see' like the camera then you can create some really good pictures. It's not an instrument I'd naturally choose, but perhaps the review says more about TNP than anything.
 
One of my favourite youtubers, Martin Henson, loves shooting with the Holga, and gets some wonderful results, but I am getting old and it just seems like too much discomfort for me. I've had some unpredicted results lately using more capable cameras and feeling a bit negative, I suppose.
 
The Oldun said:
One of my favourite youtubers, Martin Henson, loves shooting with the Holga, and gets some wonderful results, but I am getting old and it just seems like too much discomfort for me. I've had some unpredicted results lately using more capable cameras and feeling a bit negative, I suppose.
Click to expand...

I'm at the other end of the spectrum, in that I used to shoot medium format because 35mm wasn't able to give the image quality I wanted. But OTOH I'd do allsorts in the darkroom to get a picture looking how I wanted. I used a Lubitel 166 too, which was a bit like a holga, only with a proper lens & focussing system. Shooting digital just makes things so much easier now. :)
 
Last edited:
For me, it came across as a clickbait gear review which is disappointing as I also have enjoyed a few of his videos.

"It will lay bare, [...] all the faults we have in ourselves and how we make our photographs" (Not sure if he realised what he said about himself there...)
"I guarantee no one can handle one of these" (I lol'd out loud at that - especially seeing Nige's work with one)
"It is, however, going to teach you how to see through a camera" (which I perceived him meaning as a bad thing - when in my HO, it's the only thing!)

I wonder if the sarcasm is so thinly veiled that I missed it, or whether it's just saying "don't use this unless all you want to learn is how to see through a camera"

I have a similar love/hate relationship with the sprocket rocket and my instamatic. For me, they take me back to being a kid, when I knew nothing about shutter speed, iso and all that jazz and just pressed a button and hoped. Yes they need a ton of work to use without effing up, yes the build quality is terrible. But I'm learning to work with those limitations and get much more personal satisfaction when they work out.
 
"No photographer is as good as the simplest camera" Edward Steichen (from memory).
 
Like a lot of alternative image making approaches it is fun to see what you can do with one. Also the very stripped-back approach is a great way to get one thinking about light and composition because that is pretty much all you have to play with.
 
There’s a man that has completely missed the point. One man’s pain and misery is another’s freedom and joy.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I'm at the other end of the spectrum, in that I used to shoot medium format because 35mm wasn't able to give the image quality I wanted. But OTOH I'd do allsorts in the darkroom to get a picture looking how I wanted. I used a Lubitel 166 too, which was a bit like a holga, only with a proper lens & focussing system. Shooting digital just makes things so much easier now. :)
Click to expand...

The Lubitels can give some very acceptable results, plus they seem to have an antique look to them, but hard to say exactly why.
If the focus is set properly, and you can see the screen well enough to focus, they are OK, and the shutters are probably the most accurate of any "old" camera I have tested.

I haven't tried a Holga, they remind me of the cheap made in Hong Kong cameras I was bought when I was about 6.
I do have a Holga M43 pinhole lens that is perfect for checking for sensor dust, and I have 3 Lomography plastic lenses with M43 mounts that are good fun for an old look on a new camera.

I think many people use them for the look they give, rather like the Instax discussion the other day
 
Sangoma said:
The Lubitels can give some very acceptable results, plus they seem to have an antique look to them, but hard to say exactly why.
If the focus is set properly, and you can see the screen well enough to focus, they are OK, and the shutters are probably the most accurate of any "old" camera I have tested.

I haven't tried a Holga, they remind me of the cheap made in Hong Kong cameras I was bought when I was about 6.
I do have a Holga M43 pinhole lens that is perfect for checking for sensor dust, and I have 3 Lomography plastic lenses with M43 mounts that are good fun for an old look on a new camera.

I think many people use them for the look they give, rather like the Instax discussion the other day
Click to expand...
Looking back at my old Lubitel photos I would say that the lens is characterised by vignetting and noticeable focus fall off at the edges, hence the antique look, like an old folder. I loved mine but the shutter jammed finally when I attempted to use the self timer. Apparently using the self timer is not a good idea.
 
Sangoma said:
I haven't tried a Holga, they remind me of the cheap made in Hong Kong cameras I was bought when I was about 6.
I do have a Holga M43 pinhole lens that is perfect for checking for sensor dust, and I have 3 Lomography plastic lenses with M43 mounts that are good fun for an old look on a new camera.

I think many people use them for the look they give, rather like the Instax discussion the other day
Click to expand...

I have a "holga" lens for Micro4/3rds bought from eBay. It's awful but that also makes it fun.
I set the camera to 1:1 ratio and expect terrible results but I like some of the results.
Of course being mirrorless and digital I have the luxury of WYSIWYG and the delete button.
I can't imagine doing that with the cost and time required for film.
flic.kr

Holga HL(W)-OP Lens for Olympus PEN digital camera

£9.68 worth of Chinese plastic lens fun 25mm @ F/8
flic.kr flic.kr

trypdal said:
Am I completely wrong in assuming he was being ironic and in fact he quite likes it? I'll readily admit I'm not the greatest at detecting US sarcasm
Click to expand...

I think you're on the money.
Some of the shots he showed are to my eye great - not technically by any possible yard stick, but nostalgic and slightly melancholy.
Having seen some of the abandoned roadside architecture of Route 66 last summer, I think the colour and softness evoke the emotional response to diners and motels that were once busy and modern.
 
trypdal said:
Am I completely wrong in assuming he was being ironic and in fact he quite likes it? I'll readily admit I'm not the greatest at detecting US sarcasm.
Click to expand...
That was my thought too. A bit of truth and a bit of humour. An earlier video of his featured him taking lumping around a large format camera and the biggest tripod ever, so I can't see how he could honestly be bothered by the limitations and discomfort with the Holga.
 
trypdal said:
Am I completely wrong in assuming he was being ironic and in fact he quite likes it? I'll readily admit I'm not the greatest at detecting US sarcasm.
Click to expand...
I don't think there was a hint of irony or sarcasm, I justthink he was being a camera snob.
 
I think he is trying to use a Holga in the same way he would use a Hassleblad which is clearly not going to work. You have to understand were you can use it, how to make it work ( lots of insulation tape) put filter threads on the lens to give you more setting to use IE: fast film or 400asa film which you intend to over expose in processing then use ND filters for use in strong light to balance out you exposures, make your own cable release for use on long exposures. I think there is some real fun to be had trying to get such a basic camera to work and there is a lot to be learnt in using them if your prepared to try. They are rubbish in every way so if you expect to use them like a modern camera then yes you are going to fail.

Long live the Holga, as you can tell I'm a bit of a fan of Lowfi cameras !

This Guy is the expert in my opinion Holga expert Along with FishyFish of course !
 
Last edited:
BADGER.BRAD said:
I think he is trying to use a Holga in the same way he would use a Hassleblad which is clearly not going to work. You have to understand were you can use it, how to make it work ( lots of insulation tape) put filter threads on the lens to give you more setting to use IE: fast film or 400asa film which you intend to over expose in processing then use ND filters for use in strong light to balance out you exposures, make your own cable release for use on long exposures. I think there is some real fun to be had trying to get such a basic camera to work and there is a lot to be learnt in using them if your prepared to try. They are rubbish in every way so if you expect to use them like a modern camera then yes you are going to fail.

Long live the Holga, as you can tell I'm a bit of a fan of Lowfi cameras !

This Guy is the expert in my opinion Holga expert Along with FishyFish of course !
Click to expand...
Exactly this ^^^^
 
I kinda look at my Holga in the same way I would a 600mm lens, or a 10-stop ND filter. In the same way that I wouldn't walk around with either of those afixed to a camera for all my shooting, so my Holga is reserved for the occasions where I want the particular look it gives. As Brad says above, it's not a practical everyday camera, and while I like the results mine provides, I certainly wouldn't want that look (or lack of flexibility) all the time. It's a tool for a specific use.
 
RaglanSurf said:
I don't think there was a hint of irony or sarcasm, I justthink he was being a camera snob.
Click to expand...
The guy's normal 35mm shooting is done on Minolta film cameras, AF and MF. He has an old Mamiya for medium format and also collects and shoots old Kodak cameras, including Instamatics and old Bakelite jobbies, so I don't think he is looking down on Holgas as cameras. I watched the video again and I'm convinced he is not being serious: It's just his style.
 
RaglanSurf said:
I don't think there was a hint of irony or sarcasm, I justthink he was being a camera snob.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's a camera snob at all.

I've been following his channel with some regularity. I think in general he's head and shoulders above most other film photography youtubers, as he produced the only somewhat rigorous 1-vs-1 film stock testing comparisons on there. Several instalments. Really valuable stuff.

To me at least, he's never really come across as a gear head or film camera snob - he seems to have a pretty solid technical background and his content is usually never OTT. Though of course like most youtubers he does sooner or later struggle to produce consistently engaging content, hence perhaps the slightly controversial tone in this Holga video? Not sure.
 
Last edited:
The Oldun said:
The guy's normal 35mm shooting is done on Minolta film cameras, AF and MF. He has an old Mamiya for medium format and also collects and shoots old Kodak cameras, including Instamatics and old Bakelite jobbies, so I don't think he is looking down on Holgas as cameras. I watched the video again and I'm convinced he is not being serious: It's just his style.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you’re more tolerant, if that’s his style it doesn’t work for me, wash to their own but if you were just dipping your toes into film photography and searched for info on the Holga this is very misleading, whether it’s his “style” or not, to me it’s b*****ks!
 
I take a simple (and simplistic) view of these things - do whatever turns you on.

I advise remembering that what you like is neither worse nor better than what others like. Utub, Twister and the rest of the social mediaverse are full of people trying to massage their egos, their wallets or both, by making others think themselves inferior.

Get one over on them by enjoying yourself, whether you use a Leica or a Diana, and let the Meja wannabees rant alone. :naughty:
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I take a simple (and simplistic) view of these things - do whatever turns you on.

I advise remembering that what you like is neither worse nor better than what others like. Utub, Twister and the rest of the social mediaverse are full of people trying to massage their egos, their wallets or both, by making others think themselves inferior.

Get one over on them by enjoying yourself, whether you use a Leica or a Diana, and let the Meja wannabees rant alone. :naughty:
Click to expand...

You can say that what you like is neither worse nor better but in reality it very often is. If you want a blurry picture with vignetting and lots of character that's one thing but if you want to capture birds in flight, dogs or kids running about or even just an in focus and acceptably sharp picture of the Mrs on a sunny day (with minimal vignetting) then clearly some tools are worse or better than others.
 
woof woof said:
You can say that what you like is neither worse nor better but in reality it very often is. If you want a blurry picture with vignetting and lots of character that's one thing but if you want to capture birds in flight, dogs or kids running about or even just an in focus and acceptably sharp picture of the Mrs on a sunny day (with minimal vignetting) then clearly some tools are worse or better than others.
Click to expand...
But surely it depends on your reality, how you want those shots of birds, dogs and Mrs’s to look?
“Acceptably sharp” is by its very nature a variable. So worse or better is a personal perception isn’t it?
 
RaglanSurf said:
So worse or better is a personal perception isn’t it?
Click to expand...
Yes.

That was the point I was attempting to make. One man's "sharp" is another woman's "boring" and one man's "blurry" is another woman's "artistic".
 
Many of the photos given in links here are good photos, very pleasing to look at, mainly due to how they were chosen and taken, and are not spoilt by any imperfections of the equipment.
You don't even notice that immediately.
 
An important aspect of photography seldom discussed is that the technical qualities of an image should not interfere with its message.
 
trypdal said:
A double-edged sword, that one!
Click to expand...

Yes it is.

I find modern lenses too hard and contrasty for some of the photos I want to make, and and so very often reduce clarity, crush blacks etc. I want the resolving power and fine detail, the cleanness, lack of halos, but I want them in a smooth and silky image. That's not always the case, and for some shots I want very highly detailed images with loads of contrast and obvious sharpness. The things I can't bear are the images that look like an enlargement of a part of a phone camera image, or pictures where nothing is in any kind of focus (Polaroid - looking at you) - the 'Gilbert and George' approach to photography.

There are a lot of classic images that, if they were taken NOW would get some stick for low technical quality, and rightly so, because the level of kit has moved on and we have learned from the past. A classic image by its nature was iconic at the time and should always be viewed in that context. It might also be unlikely to be seen as iconic if it were reproduced now in any case because the social reasons behind such iconic status might no longer be present, and it would be just another image jostling with millions of other pictures for recognition.

But in the end, if I had to choose between technically excellent and technically poo, I'd take excellent. It doesn't have to get in the way, as some are seemingly so determined that it must. I get emails from David duChemin offering courses (which are probably very good), and they so often they repeat a theme that I see "Do you feel like your photos are correct but not creative?" is one recent example. This isn't a binary situation where you can be EITHER technically able OR creative, but rather technical excellence should be the starting point for creativity. And that would include knowing when using a camera like the Holga will make your picture better. If someone can't do that then it's no different from using a preset in lightroom or Photoraw etc and just applying it randomly to your pictures in the hope that some will look 'interesting'. Not that one shouldn't experiment, but it should be intentional, rather than random.

Is the technical quality of these images a problem:

www.npg.org.uk

Arnold Newman - National Portrait Gallery

Photographer One of America's leading portrait photographers since the 1940s; master of the environmental portrait. Commissioned by The Sunday TImes to photograph 75 leading British personalities for NPG exhibition, The Great British (1979).
www.npg.org.uk www.npg.org.uk


tl:dr - if you notice the techical aspects of an image first, it has already failed.
 
Last edited:
Something said by a work colleague whilst we were having a conversation on photography and the fact I still use some film which has stuck with me , He said a lot of the High Def images he sees ( including TV) are so high def that they look unreal ( this is not a photographer). Sometimes a super sharp technically superb image is exactly what you do not want or need especially if conveying melancholy,horror or a depressed mood in you photos or trying to get a retro look, something like the Holga will get you there or at least very nearly there. Of course the the complete opposite will work better for some images/subjects and moods !
 
Big fan of The 'Ol Naked Photographer, I watched this video a while ago and what I took from it is the Holga is as crap as everyone says it is and as a picture taking device it really is. Thats not to say you cannot take great photos with it! His main point I think was, this camera is so bad if you master photography with this you will master it with anything.

His discord server is very active and interacts directly with everyone, I think he'd appreciate any feedback you provide as well. In a sea of youtube he's on of the few not hyping every single body and lens to come out every year
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top