No.604
This is all I use. I picked it up just because the viewfinder is supposed to be more accurate than a standard Holga. I wish there was a Holga SLR out there or something, though.
No.609
>>604
You can mount holga lenses to an SLR. Holga sells mounts for both canon and nikkon.
http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/holga-dslr-lens/
Also, what do you think of the holga tlr? Ive checked it out but havent tried it. Is it worth getting for the better composition ability? I assume the lens is still shit.
No.610
Holga 135 pinhole
Diana 120
Leica MP with 35mm summicron
No.611
Holy shit. Haven't touched the Diana in five years and there was film in it! Sweet! Gonna develop this shit and see what was on it!
No.612
>>611
Fujifilm stopped selling C-41 in 2010. This film is at least 5 years old.
No.613
Okay im gonna load this baby up into the development tank and see what I get. No idea what I was doing 5 years ago with this diana, hopefully the shots arent destroyed from years of neglect!
No.614
>>613
So I was just about to load this into the tank and realized it was a roll of color film and I dont have chemicals for that. So decided ill take it to the photo lab and have them develop it for me. Heading there now, lets see what happens.
No.615
So just got back from photo lab. They said they cant do a one hour development on the film. I explained that it was at least 5 years old, so they are going to send it to another lab that specializes in developing out-of-date film. I wont get it back for two weeks. Ill update this thread with scans when I get it back!
No.616
guys i dont get whats the rage about shooting shitty lomo pics with a shitty plasticky body and window glass lens. somebody clear this up for me
No.617
>>616
Lomo is just modern day pictorialism. It started in early 2000 as a rebellion of the new consumer digital cameras that started showing up back then.
Personally I started with lomo around 2007 because it was a cheap way into learning film using a camera with limited functions. The limited functions help learn the physics behind photography. Cheap is good because beginners take shitty photos anyways.
Do you have a lomo camera?
No.618
>>616
By the way, poster >>610 has a 5000 dollar camera and 5000 dollar lens under those two lomo pieces of trash.
No.619
>>601
What lens do you have on the leica?
No.620
No.621
>>617
If you wanna learn film photgraphy just get a ae1 or even a canon rangefinder. those go for extremely cheap. how can you learn a skill when everything you shoot is blurry and dark...
No.622
>>621
That was almost 10 years ago. I bought a holga on a whim and shot a few rolls before upgrading to a ricoh 35mm slr.
You ever shoot holga?
No.623
>>622
nope, i dont wanna walk away from a shot i know i couldve got on a proper slr, when shooting with a holga
No.624
>>623
What if you are wanting the light leaks and imperfections from the holga? Would you still shoot SLR then modify in ye olde photoshoppe?
No.625
>>624
>light leaks and imperfections
literally the first time i shot with my leica i fucked up and accidentally opened up the bottom cover and exposed about 4 frames. if you want shitty film grain just buy some overpriced lomo film. If you want more just soak your film in some shit and vomit, expose it and voila, lomo!
No.626
>>625
I get light leaks with my leica sometimes too. I developed a roll today and 4-5 frames were destroyed by light leak. I didnt open the camera, but maybe one of my noob friends wanted to see inside the camera when I wasnt looking.
How do you find your leica? Ive got the MP and really like the aesthetics of shooting with it. Its a sexy machine.
No.627
>>626
idk man i dont really like the weight.. the aesthetics are ofcourse /fa/ but the rangefinding can be annoying sometimes and the lack of a light meter is really annoying... one of my guests of my dad just gave it to me when i was small... and we kinda kept it.....
No.628
>>627
I really like the weight. It feels like I could drop it and it wouldnt break, and that is reassuring to me.
The rangefinder takes a bit of practice, but its really not too hard. Its easy enough to shoot with leica from the hip as long as your depth of field is big enough for your target.
You got any shots that youve taken with your leica? I want to see :D
No.629
>>628
nah man i would never drop a 1k camera... just the thought of it.....
the little yellow box is just hard to figure out sometimes...
yeah ive got some prints but i dont have a scanner or anything...
No.630
>>629
Use your phone to take a picture of the prints. I just ordered a new enlarger to replace the ghetto enlarger that I built myself haha.
No.631
No.632
>>630
i can take some snaps later yeah
>>631
nah i send them in to a print shop to develop and enlarge
No.633
>>632
Cheers, looking forward to seeing your snaps.
No.634
>>633
cmon man dont be a wank post some of urs too
No.635
>>634
Alright, I just scanned a bunch. Give me a few minutes to invert them and scale down to web size.
No.636
Okay ill start dumping as I process them. Sorry there is a bit of dog hair on some of the scans haha.
No.637
This horse tried to bite me a few seconds after I took this shot.
No.638
>>637
why is this one so dark? somethings off
No.640
>>638
Maybe looks dark on your screen. Looks okay on my mac retina though. Prints look okay too.
No.641
>>640
i mean the sky looks super dim
No.642
>>641
Ah! I used a red filter. Red filters make a bright blue sky look black.
No.643
Heres a more dramatic example of that dark sky from the red filter.
No.644
>>643
whats the practical use though?
No.645
>>644
It makes red become white and blue becomes black.
Practical use is to make white clouds pop out on a sunny day. You can also use it to accent highlights that are red or blue.
No.646
>>645
I'm guessing on color film everything will have a red tint
No.647
This tree is dreamy. I didnt use red filter for this.
No.648
>>643
which b/w film did u use
No.649
>>646
Yeah the red filter can only really be used for black and white photography. I used it once to take a photo of my dog in color and it looked like my dog was a demon hound from hell.
No.650
>>648
Most of these were with kodak tri-x 400.
What film do you use? Im thinking about switching to 100 iso or lower for more crispyness.
No.651
>>650
i shoot color cause i have no idea how to shoot b/w. I just pick up the cheapest color film to be honest, im only learning at this moment and just wanna play around
No.652
>>651
Shooting B&W is all about controlling the light. Once you can master light, you will make good shots.
Upload some shots, lets see :)
No.653
>>647
Did you use infrared film for this?
No.654
>>653
No, I used kodak tri-x 400 for this. I think I took this shot around noon at f/8 and a 1/500 shutter speed.
No.655
>>652
sorry for shitty quality and reflections, worked hard at the angle to conceal face
No.657
>>609
>You can mount holga lenses to an SLR. Holga sells mounts for both canon and nikkon.
I bought lenses before I decided to go with the real thing. I only played around with them a bit before I just opted to go with film for the more imperfect film look with heavy light leaks.
I can't really see myself going back to digital until the day when the idiosyncrasies of film can be flawlessly emulated, and maybe that'll never even happen.
>Also, what do you think of the holga tlr? Ive checked it out but havent tried it. Is it worth getting for the better composition ability? I assume the lens is still shit.
From what I've heard, it's more accurate horizontally than a standard Holga camera, but I can't really compare it as this is the only one I've used. The lens is still plastic, but I think there might be a glass version out. It's also worth noting that it's not a true TLR, the top lens is only used as a viewfinder.
>>616
Toy cameras are all about the beautiful, dreamy-looking aesthetic. The problem comes with the Lomographic Society protogs pushing their "don't think, just shoot" philosophy and encouraging people to throw all rules of composition out the window.
No.658
>>657
Lomo society makes their money selling absurdly over-priced lomo film. Of course they encourage "don't think, just shoot". It is better for their bank.
No.659
>>655
>>656
These were shot with your leica? They look fantastic. Looks like you travel a lot.
No.660
>>659
yeah most of them were from my trip to reykjavik, i like the accidental light leak on the ice alot, makes it look like lava
No.661
>>657
>protogs
I'm not even sure what insult I was trying to type here.
>>658
Yup, it's largely about making money. On one hand, they've done a lot to popularize lo-fi photography and are keeping film alive, but on the other, their stuff costs an arm and a leg, their marketing is stupid, and they aren't worth buying from if you can find what you're looking for elsewhere.
No.662
>>661
f-a-g-s becomes protogs, haha.
Lomography is good for teaching teens and shit that something exists as an alternative to digital photography. As these teens get older and wiser, they will buy proper equipment and start getting normal priced film.
No.663
>>661
Pictorialsm was a huge movement for many decades with a very similar aesthetic to the lomography movement. Pictorialism was mainly killed by Ansel Adam's hyper realistic photography.
No.664
>>663
Well we've already got hyper realistic photography now. What is going to come along and kill lomography?
No.665
No.666
>>665
How the hell will collodion process kill lomography? Are hipsters going to start printing on daguerreotypes?
No.667
>>666
nice trips, also, why not?
No.668
>>662
Oh, that explains it.
>>663
Yeah, a lot of black-and-white toy camera shots tend to have a pictorialist feeling to them.
>>664
They'll probably just learn to exist side-by-side.
No.669
>>668
I actually checked out that collodion process. It looks fairly easy. I might make a setup for that after I buy a house and have a dedicated space.
Have you made any tintypes?
No.693
>>669
No, I haven't even tried developing my own film yet.
No.709
>>693
Why not? Its easy and cheap.
No.711
>>709
I'm still trying to get the look I want first. The foam popped out of my Holga, so I stuck a piece of cardboard in there, and that basically killed my light leaks. I sent in a roll not too long ago where I was using nothing but a little piece of paper, but I haven't gotten it back yet. The roll didn't seem too fat when I sent it in, so I'm not sure if it'll look the way I want it to. After that, I'm going to try cross processing.
I'll probably try developing my own pictures next year, since I'm pretty much done with photography until next spring.
No.713
>>669
Don't forget to use goggles and gloves
No.715
>>711
You should spend the winter learning how to make prints from your negatives. Prints are really enjoyable to make IMO.
>>713
I dont use protection with normal B&W chemicals, but I suppose I should with a collodion setup.
No.716
>>711
Upload your photos! I want to see your holga shots
No.733
No.736
>>716
>>716
I'm not sure an enlarger and scanner are worth it right now given my lack of satisfaction with the quality of shots I've been taking.
No.737
>>736
Holga does not equal quality. If you want quality shots, then learn about proper exposure and get a real camera not a toy camera.
No.742
>>737
I'm not the least bit interested in high fidelity, my shots are just inconsistent. I have a lot of throwaway shots in each roll (probably due to misjudging distance and shooting with slow film), and my last one seemed kind of underexposed even though it was taken on a sunny day. I'm considering getting some 200 or 400 ISO film and just saving the 100 ISO stuff I've been using for only the brightest days.
I've read it takes about ten rolls for someone to figure out what they're doing on cameras like these, and I've only gotten four or five back, so I think I just need to play around more.
No.747
>>742
Problem with holga is that you dont have any fine control over the camera. After 10 rolls you should figure out that you are just wasting your money and need to get a real camera that is more than a one-trick-pony. Its easy enough to get holga results from post processing, why waste your perfectly good shots with a permanent shit filter?
No.748
>>747
One roll of 120 film: 5 bucks
Processing fees: 5 bucks
Printing fees: 10 bucks
Ten rolls is 200 bucks. Its a waste of money for shooting holga.
No.749
>>748
IMO if youre gonna shoot 120, at least get a mamiya for a few hundred bucks.
No.776
>>747
I'm not interested in anything other than the toy camera aesthetic, and I'd prefer the look right out of the camera if possible. To shoot with a "nice" camera would be counterproductive for what I'm trying to do. I might as well just learn to work within the limitations until of the camera I can consistently get the results I'm trying to achieve.
No.838
>>776
Can you describe what you are trying to do? I want to see more of your holga shots
No.881
>>838
Alright, here's a crappy scan of one of my favorite images I've taken to give you an idea of the kind of look I like. I have more, but I seem to be having trouble including them in one post.
No.925
Let's talk about the Olympus Trip 35 and similar cameras.
No.929
>>925
damn thats an old photo, at least 15 years no? did you recently just scan it?
No.979
Can I join the cool club now?
Where can I bulk B&W 120/220 on the cheep?
Who should I support? Kodak? Fuji? Illford?
No.981
>>979
You can get 120 for 5 dollars a roll on amazon if you buy in bulk packs.
No.982
>>981
$5, can you link me. It's like $12 AUD a roll down under.
No.984
>>982
Heres a package of 5 rolls for 25 dollars. Comes out to one roll per 5 dollars.
http://www.amazon.com/kodak-115-3659-Professional-Propack/dp/B0073HCE3O/