Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon  ... best not to use a holga then
this might sound a bit of a trite answer ... but I'm being serious. I'm not averse to the imperfections of a plastic lens myself, but if I'm wanting paralax exactness and a high level of predictability, I'll use my mf slr. All the holga-tastic characteristics can then be simulated in the darkroom if needs be.
PS - some friendly advice ... probably best not to speak too loudly about your "creative" use of photoshope here. Folk have been hung, drawn and quartered for less  Welcome to APug |
Ah, I don't worry about other's views on things. The image is the point. BTW, only the first sentence of your reply appeared on the screen. Maybe there's something about viewing full forum posts I don't have turned on.
I think my point about parallax is valid (and not just parallax; there is also a issue of viewfinder coverage). One buys a Holga for the crappy, plastic lens and the awesome images it produces. What I don't appreciate about using the camera is randomness. I'd rather not shoot something then find out later that it didn't come out exactly as I would like for it to have been. There is lag-time and cost when using film. Just trying to maximize my dollars and number of usable frames. I can buy a Holga lens for my Canons and will do so later, so that would seem to settle the parallax problem and put the problem to bed, but then you're missing the medium format film element, squareness, etc, so the argument isn't finished.
I prefer film over digital. Don't know why, maybe it's because of my Photography courses in college and the scents of the darkroom. FYI, here is my arsenal:
Digital:
Canon 5D (24-70L, 100 macro, 70-200L f/4, 100-400L)
Film:
Canon EOS-3
Bronica SQ-Ai (50mm, 80mm, 150mm lenses)
Holga
I don't have the room, plumbing and equipment to do a wet darkroom and I'm not a 100% traditionalist, although I've already mentioned an affinity for film.
I guess I'll work it out myself with a few rolls of film, which is what I was trying to avoid.