Author Topic: HOLGA  (Read 1963 times)

HOLGA
« on: June 19, 2008, 12:09:02 pm »
Hello,

I was given a HOLGA for my birthday, but I don't really know anything about film photography.

I need to get a couple of rolls of film processed and printed, but I'm seeing lots of places that do process only for a couple of quid. I think once they have been processed  it is possible to scan the film and then print any that I want.

Could anyone explain to me how this works, what I get once the film has been processed and a reasonable scanner to use?

Thanks very much for your help.

iakobski

Re: HOLGA
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2008, 12:35:05 pm »
Wow! - interesting present, but why?

And more to the point: which one exactly?

Re: HOLGA
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2008, 12:41:59 pm »
It's a 120CFN - the one with the colour flash.

Why? because it's fun  ;)

iakobski

Re: HOLGA
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2008, 01:10:09 pm »
Mmmm, 120, tricky.

If you mask at 6X6 then standard dev & print will give you little 4 inch prints because the paper comes on a roll and is cut to the format. So the idea of scanning is a good one - BUT virtually all consumer film scanners and flatbed scanner adapters will only do 35mm film. You'll have to do a bit of searching to see if you can find a scanner + adapter for larger sizes, ebay might be your best bet. AFAIK, proper film scanners for 120 are going to be at least £1000, but someone round here may know otherwise.

The other option is dev + contact (or dev + machine print is often cheaper) then choose the ones you like and get them enlarged.

Re: HOLGA
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2008, 01:23:07 pm »
Hurrah! Old-skool photog action!

When you get just the film processed, you'll get back the negatives (or slides). You can get a fair idea of what your pictures are like from these, because they're not too tiny. Scanning's a bit trickier. You can use a regular flatbad scanner, if you can find a film attachment, but my experience of these is that they give very low quality images. Dedicated film scanners give much better prints, but are pricey - especially for one that will take medium format film. Have a look on ebay, but you're talking about several hundreds of pounds, at least, I would reckon.

When you get the film processed there might be an option to have it scanned and placed on CD as well, and this might be worth trying out - my experience of this is very much that you get what you pay for, though, and decent scans are not that cheap.

You should also have the option of a contact sheet, for a couple of pounds more - that's a sheet with neg-sized copies of your photos, and often useful.

If you're mostly going to scan the prints, you're probably better off choosing slide rather than negative film, for colour, because IME it produces better results more easily.

Of course, you could always start to do the processing yourself - this is pretty straightforward for b&w, and old darkroom equipment pops up for *pennies* on ebay, if you have the space for it. 

iakobski

Re: HOLGA
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2008, 01:32:24 pm »
Oh yes, good point - don't dismiss black and white because you've got the colour flash, the combination will give very interesting effects.

Re: HOLGA
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2008, 03:24:59 pm »
Flatbeds have improved drastically over the past few years. Film scanners may be better but I certainly wouldn't describe flatbeds as 'very low quality'. I can get fantastic looking A3 prints from medium format film.

When I got my Epson 4180 we did a couple of tests with some medium format film scans for a magazine and compared them with a professional drum scan at A4. The drum scan was only very slightly better, certainly not worth the cost. We still sent the odd one out but most were done in house and saved the company a fortune.

Film scanners are at least 2 or 3 times more expensive than a flatbed too, and much less adaptable as you obviously can't scan prints. Considering most flatbeds come with film adapters, for home use it's a no brainer. A couple of hundred quid will get a decent flatbed.

Re: HOLGA
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2008, 03:37:29 pm »
Flatbeds have improved drastically over the past few years. Film scanners may be better but I certainly wouldn't describe flatbeds as 'very low quality'. I can get fantastic looking A3 prints from medium format film.

Oh, that's interesting to know.The last time I tried a flatbed scanner was about three years ago. It was a decent and new-ish model at the time, and the scan quality was abysmal - very noisy and horrible colour.

What sort of resolution can you get from a flatbed, now?

Re: HOLGA
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2008, 03:49:03 pm »
I get 4800dpi optical resolution. I was similarly sceptical of flatbeds too, previous results always a bit noisy and a little soft but was really impressed with the 4180 especially considering it was only £200. Much much better than the Epson 3200 it replaced.

Re: HOLGA
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2008, 04:50:04 pm »
quick sums - 4800 dpi on a 120 negative at 6 x 4.5 is 90MPixels.  Can that be right? Does it really resolve to that level? Even a 35mm slide frame would be 30MP.  Feels a bit too high to me...

Re: HOLGA
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2008, 10:44:05 pm »
According to Epson that's correct. It goes up to 9600 dpi using interpolation.

I just scanned a 35mm slide at 4800dpi and got a 77.5mb file at about 6510x4173 pixels, so about 27MPixels. Taken down to 300dpi for printing gives a print size of 55x35cm though I wouldn't print 35mm at this size as you do start to see the limitations. I used to happily scan 6x4.5 and 6x6 film up to A3 for the magazines I worked on though.

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: HOLGA
« Reply #11 on: June 20, 2008, 03:13:41 pm »
It will resolve quite happily. I use large format (4x5) and have borrowed an Epson 4990. It willresolve to the grain in the film (Velvia 50) so gives a quite high res image (36x24" at 294dpi). Unfortunately the lens didn't resolve quite that well. See

Stunning quality. Whole image



The bright dot neat the waterline at the extreme left.



240mm lens, 2 miles away. Some of the resolution may be down to atmospheric effects (over open water).

..d
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes