- This topic is empty.
Diana, St Patricks Day Warrenpoint
-
Diana F and Fuji 400 colour print film. Neg scans.
Just starting to get a feel for this little camera, doesn’t seem to have the same sharp spot as the Holga.Narrow Water Castle
Teenage jollys
Jess and Slieve Foy (Carlingford Mountain)
I’ve got to admit to not liking the lens on the Diana-
I suspect that there might be more overall resolution on a pinhole image,
and since pinhole images don’t display any resolution at all,
well, that’s saying something…Perhaps sample variation on the very cheap moulded lens might mean that somewhere there’s a good one,
but I just don’t think it’s worth trying to find one-
I think the images I see coming out of Holgas are far more seductive.I have said it on these pages before, and I haven’t really seen any images that are likely to change my mind-
Sorry Sinead, you will find people who will like this camera and what it can do,
but I just don’t get it myself-joseph
Joseph – Thank you…
I was excited the scans came back with actual pictures, I’ve had a few disasters with this camera,
this is the best I’ve got from it, so far…
I get what your saying, and, I’m still undecided if I like it myself. I really want to like it though.
I’m keeping my eyes open for a subject that might suit.I have an almost identical picture of Narrow Water Castle on Holga, I might post that later.
I do like the Holga much better. I have some pictures from my new Holga which, I’m just about to post.Dave – Cheers, me too. But, I tend to feel that way about any picture of Jess.
I love the second one,
I love the flare. The subject is good and really suits the result or maybe the result
suits the subject . . . you know what I mean.There is a nice atmosphere in the pic and it has nice action too. yea I like it.
But
To be honest I dont really understand the whole buzz with these toy cameras . . . but I do love
some of the effects and results. And I dont want to offend anyone either, I just dont get it.I wouldnt bother even cleaning the lens If I was into it, what amount of difference would it make?
Doesnt really matter what the lens quality is like either, if you are striving to get good results
from a plastic camera, just move up a step and get a manual slr of about 20 years ago.Then again I dont fully understand the attraction.
Sorry
Alan
Thank you Alan.
I’m not sure that is flare in the second, I’ve had a few problems with this camera,
sometimes the film is a bit loose when unloading, so I think it might have got a bit
of exposure to light.I don’t think anyone is going to be offended if you don’t like toy cameras, and I
don’t think it’s something you need to say sorry about either.Have you ever tried a toy camera Alan?
I quite like the second picture, but I would agree, a little bit more resolution and less imperfection would do good to these.
Jess is a supermodel as usual, posing like a pro.
I like the “accidental” framing, heads and bodies cut off on the edges.
jessthespringer wrote:
Thank you Alan.
I’m not sure that is flare in the second, I’ve had a few problems with this camera,
sometimes the film is a bit loose when unloading, so I think it might have got a bit
of exposure to light.I don’t think anyone is going to be offended if you don’t like toy cameras, and I
don’t think it’s something you need to say sorry about either.Have you ever tried a toy camera Alan?
NO to be honest I hav’nt tries it so I suppose that is why I dont understand it.
I do really like the effects though. some of them anyway.
Its not that I dont like them, its just there seems to be a struggle to get good
results from them and it seems contradictory, or have I got it ar5eways.Anyway I am a constant lurker in this section and enjoy the posts.
A
Zoltan – lol!! at all of that!! It’s a bit hard to work out the framing on these.
I didn’t think I had cut off Jess’ head in that one.Yep, no problem to Jess. Bless…
Zoltan, this is for you. Just because your a fan of accidental photography.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
