- This topic is empty.
Request for feedback – home devloped B&W with Holga
-
Hi,
Id like some feedback on the images below, i found them slightly disapointing . . .They are the first pictures taken with my holga and also the first B & W films i ever developed myself.
I like some feedback from people who develop B & W and/or use a Holga.
I know this is a Holga but from medium format i would have expected more detail.
I know that the blurring around the edges is supposed to be there but i find the images to be the opposite of
“easy on the eye”Did i expect to much?
Film is Ilford HP5
Cheers,
Eillop.To me the film looks fogged or something, possibly during development stages. I think you just need more experience with the cam before you produce the classic holga look.
Also remeber every holga is different, its a toy camera and the likelyhood of getting a crap one is very high. Did you tape up the camera so no light could get in?Well done-
not so difficult, is it?
The processing looks fine, from here-
good range of tones, well exposed-
and seems well matched to your scanner-
post processing in software should add something too-
or just printing slightly harder-The Holga effect-
much has been written about it already-I used one once, and I had a much better lens than this-
well, I say better, but some people who use these cameras might be aghast at the quality,
and might much prefer the results from yours-The third pic is interesting, it gives some clues as to what is happening-
seems this lens is giving you a lot of field curvature-
you can see that the details on either side of the frame are not unsharp compared to the centre, though everything else is a blur…
Rather than focussing on a flat plane, it seems to be focussing on a section of a sphere…The centre, and only quite a small bit of it, seems to be producing the best resolution-
I know this is a Holga but from medium format i would have expected more detail.
An imaging system comprises the resolving power of the lens and the resolving power of the film- combined-
you know this is a Holga, so I think you answered your own question-Though I do think it’s possible to get better lenses on those things-
In the meantime, maybe you could try taking some pictures down corridors and tunnels,
and see if you can get that curvature working for you…j
just read Ben’s post-
can’t see any evidence of fogging-
apart from maybe a tiny bit bottom right in the last…though it might also be flare-
unlikely on a Holga, I know…Thanks for the responses guys. I thougt i taped it up prettty reasonably well.
I dont really know what i expected, but the theres way more detail in my 35mm B & W
shots taken with HP5, and those negatives are less than half the size. Only difference
is i didnt develop them myself :)I knew it was going to be crap – just wasnt expecting it to be that crap, but then thats exactly what
other perople are looking for.jb7 – your are right – developing is easy once you have the stuff! Ist a lot simpler than i expected
you cant really do too much wrong.BTW – I had those films scanned in a shop for €8 each. Is ther anywhere i can get his done cheaper or can you recomend a good
scanner that i could by?I slotted in another film ysterday so ill see how that goes.
JB has really said it all. No fog and images look fine just a little soft. It takes a while to get an understanding of what style of images suit the Holga. I would just add that the light looks a bit flat on the day you were taking the images. The best results I get from the Holga are on very bright sunny days. However you will be more prone to light-leaks on sunny days so keep the camera in the camera bag and just take it out when making an image. I would also suggest you mark the focusing scale with 3 6 20 30 in feet which will help you make quick focusing decisions. I have lots of Holga images on my blog which might give you some ideas.
I forgot to mention,
I really quite like that third one, the movement around one point,
and the sharpness around the edges-It’s nicely composed within the square too;
looking through a square frame makes you see things differently, slightly-Though I do have my usual reservations about street performers appearing in the street genre-
it’s just a little bit tautological-
but I think this one goes beyond thatI’ve also noticed I shouldn’t have mentioned that,
cos this isn’t posted in street-not paying attention again…
j
Thanks again for the replys.
I use Rodinal 1:25 with Ilford HP5 400 for 6 minutes to develop.
– What can i change in development ot get more contrast in the negatives?
– Also some people seem to think that developing for longer e.g. 7 or 8 minutes will do this, is this true?
– Also ive read that reducing agitation during development can increase acutance – has anyone any experience with this?
– Since getting the negatives scanned is expensive, can anyone recomend a cheap scanner? Were talking sub €200.
Thanks again for all the responses!!
Your exposure seems fine-
so increasing development will build up density in the highlights-
which will mean that you’ll need to have a good scanner if you push it too far-A little bit more density might be good, but I haven’t seen the negs…
Reduced agitation can produce acutance,
but in order for the edge effect to work there has to be an abrupt change in density, ie sharpness, to begin with-
I doubt you have too many line pairs per millimeter on that particular lens-Can’t help with the scanning-
that price already looks cheap for here-j
I presume by increased denstiy in the highlights you mean whites will get whiter and if im not carefull theyll burn out?
What about darker areas? Do they stop developing? Otherwise the whole negative would just get brighter right?
Im still not sure what to do about the scanning – at €8 per scan in the shop i should get €200 back relatively quickly
so i could nearly spend a little more, im just not made of money these days:)According to Agfa’s own documentation it should be 8 minutes at a dilution of 1+25 whereas Ilford themselves have on their sheet 6 minutes for ASA400 and 8 minutes for 800.
In my own notes I have for Rodinal at 1+25 – High contrast 8 minutes, Medium contrast 6 minutes, and Low contrast 4 minutes 30 secs. I would not recommend using any processing time of less than five minutes as the possibility of uneven developing is greater and you could end up with patchy negatives.
If you were to process them yourself then what type of enlarger would you be using? The reason I ask is that if you are using a condenser enlarger your medium to high contrast time would be suitable but if you were using a diffuser enlarger then you would need the higher contrast time. Obviously this would depend on personal preference. A condenser enlarger has a series of lenses between the negative and light source and gives a higher contrast printing exposure whereas a diffuser enlarger has a diffused light source above the negative and tends to soften the contrast a bit.
Regarding the contrast of the photos on the site, if those scans are a true representation of the photographs then I would recommend bumping up the paper contrast to get a better range of tones. What paper did you use? If Multigrade then what filter setting? If it was Ilford Multigrade and this was printed with No2 filter then your contrast is certainly low but this could be indicative of the Holga optics which would be relatively low definition when compared to your usual SLR and tend to produce lower contrast. If you did use Ilford Multigrade paper and you try printing with a No3 or 3 and a Half filter you will see a marked improvement. Try experimenting with the filters to see how they affect the contrast of your final print. No00 is very low contrast and No5 is very high. I hope I’m not preaching to the converted and that you already know all this, I hope I’m being of some use.
Rather than going on (I’m good at that) I’ll leave you with above and if you have any more questions or want anything elaborated then feel free to ask and I will certainly post some more.Hello thedarkroom
I dont actually do any prints. Whats posted above are direct scans of the negatives done for me in the shop.
The only thing i do myself is developing the negatives.
A darkroom, never mind doing my own prints is completely unfeasable for me at the moment.
I could always just photoshop the scans but that defeats the whole purpose for me.
On another note, I have a good selection of pdf’s of various films and chemicals, safety data sheets, papers, etc. If anyone wants some I could email whichever you want to you. Some can be quite large so it would help if you have broadband or plenty of patience. PM me with your email address and what you are looking for and if I have it I’ll send it on. When I get a chance I suppose what I really should do is post up a list of all that I have. Someday!
I know what you mean. However, you could push the contrast up to improve the pictures. This would be no different than what someone might do in the darkroom anyway by using different papers or filters for effect. A bit like altering your times, dilutions or temperature when you are processing your original film. At each and every stage you are introducing and controlling a set of variables to match and reflect your original perception of the scene.
1.- When you take a photo – you alter shutter speed, aperture, focussing, focal length, view point, etc. etc.
2.- You pick a specific film – b&w, colour, slide, print, fast slow, high contrast, low, etc. etc.
3.- When you process the roll – you pick a specific developer, control dilution, time, temperature, etc
4.- When you print in darkroom – as film above and also pick a specific paper, surface, contrast setting, etc.
5.- If you use a scanner rather than a darkroom then you would be expected to follow the same rules as using film and paper. See 2, 3 and 4 above.The general argument often revolves around what is considered an acceptable level of manipulation, or is it ‘interference’? It’s very subjective and the arguments can often get away of the whole fun of it all.
I think the second picture is excellent.
Very interesting quality to it. I like how only two of the performers are in focus.bingbongbiddley wrote:
I think the second picture is excellent.
Very interesting quality to it. I like how only two of the performers are in focus.Me too!
I also like how the performer in the third shot almost appears to be luminous and has a glow to the highlights. I think both could benefit with a little lifting of the contrast to improve the density a bit, but that’s just my opinion.
I think the Holga has a lot of potential and this being a first attempt (I think) then it shows a lot of potential.
I presume you did a google on ‘holga’ to see what others have done, I’m off to try it now. Fascinating to think that a step backwards in technology and quality can have such a creative impact. Look at some of the old school masters and you’ll often see that the most memorable photographs aren’t necessarily the most technically perfect but just catch that moment. Man Ray! Robert Capa! Eugene Adget! and, if you think about it, you will come up with many others.http://www.lomography.com/holga/galleries
https://www.photographyireland.net/viewtopic.php?t=23847
Just back and Mr Google had a lot to say. Apart from the link above there is plenty to see, loads of galleries, and a lot of inspiration.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
