
The simple cult camera that inspired Instagram - alistairSH
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20171113-the-toy-camera-that-inspired-instagram
======
empath75
All of the articles talking about the genius of instagram’s filters seem to
forget one the earliest popular iOS camera apps — Hipstamatic. It was released
a year before Instagram and apple named it App of the Year even.

~~~
photoJ
it was wildly successful, had better filters, but really never got the social
aspect. Today, its notable to point out that people like Teru [1,2], who shot
with hipstimatic in Afghanistan on assignment now work for instagram.

[1] [https://www.npr.org/2011/07/27/138746071/foreign-policy-
heav...](https://www.npr.org/2011/07/27/138746071/foreign-policy-heavy-metal-
in-hipstamatic)

[2] [http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/04/27/teru-
kuwayama-...](http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/04/27/teru-kuwayama-
from-battleground-instagram.html)

------
fauria
Link to Lomography, where you can buy a Holga and many other vintage inspired
cameras: [https://shop.lomography.com/en/cameras/holga-
cameras/holga-j...](https://shop.lomography.com/en/cameras/holga-
cameras/holga-jack-edition-package)

------
unicornporn
I shot with the Holga quite extensively over 10 years ago. I must say it's
strange to say that the “Holga look” inspired the creators of
Instagram—because the result looks nothing like it.

Instagram did not attempt to create faux light leaks or to emulate the
imperfections of the plastic lens (which is what I associate with the Holga
look). If anything, some of the Instagram filters come closer to a well
exposed instant film.

~~~
mozumder
I think this has more to do with the fact that cell-phone cameras got much
better.

2010-era phone cameras were pretty crappy.

My own Holga never had light leaks, and most of the effects I got out of it
were done via double-exposure or cross-processing the film (a very common
Instagram look).

------
Finnucane
"120 or medium format film, which is around six times the surface area of a
frame of 35mm film."

Well, that's not right. I haven't used a Holga, but I have used a Diana, and
the Diana couldn't even cover the whole width of the roll. You didn't get 6x6
even, more like 4x4.

Burnett is also responsible for popularizing the Kodak Aero Ektar lens, to the
point where a good one now goes for crazy money on ebay.

~~~
sp332
Any of these sizes larger than 35mm but smaller than 6x9 is "medium format".
[https://i.imgur.com/02NaeU6.png](https://i.imgur.com/02NaeU6.png) It could
describe film 3x or 5x as large.

~~~
Finnucane
But not six times. I mean, I have a 6x9 Fuji, and the images it makes are
about 4 times as large as 35mm. And in any case, Holga/Diana cameras don't
come anywhere close to that.

~~~
jwong_
Well, going exactly from the quote, using surface area:

6x9 fuji: 54cm^2

35mm frame: 8.4cm^2

That fits roughly 6x

~~~
achamayou
Holgas shoot 6x4.5 though, half that, and Dianas are 4x4, even less. And 35mm
is really 24x36, closer to 8.6cm^2.

~~~
qq66
Holgas shoot 6x6 or 6x4.5.

------
earlz
So how hard is it to DIY development? It seems like every couple of years I
read an article like this one that gets me curious, because if I'm going to
use physical rolls of film, I'd might as well develop it myself without
waiting/paying a lab and to get that sense of pride when you do finally get a
good photo.

I'm not someone that takes pictures much on my phone or anything, but reading
this makes me want a cheap film camera like this where pictures aren't just
throw away, you have to go through a process to even find that the picture
turned out crappy.

~~~
ancientworldnow
Black and white is fairly simple and straightforward but still requires a
totally dark room (or bag) and a bunch of sort of expensive chemicals that go
bad (and some of which are fairly toxic for the environment).

Color is similar but more complicated with more expensive chemicals and more
room for mistakes. You're almost always better off paying someone else to
develop (in money and quality) though it's not nearly as satisfying.

Of course after you develop you need more stuff to make prints or a film
scanner to get something useful from your negatives. More investment here -
labs usually do this for you for a very small fee if you get it developed
there.

I can't recommend developing your own color film, but black and white is fun
to play with if you want to get a better understanding of the process. If
you're just doing a few rolls occasionally though then development is probably
the best option.

~~~
earlz
> I can't recommend developing your own color film, but black and white is fun
> to play with if you want to get a better understanding of the process. If
> you're just doing a few rolls occasionally though then development is
> probably the best option.

Yea B&W only, from my research that was what I gathered too. I wasn't aware
the chemicals expired though, I assumed you bought some and just processed
whenever and you were good to go

~~~
ics
If kept consistently refrigerated in low light chemicals can last a long time
(years). However because you only get one shot at developing a roll it's more
comforting to follow the manufacturer's recommendation. I stopped shooting B&W
for a long time and then used some chemicals that were in the fridge more than
5 years and the results were fine– any effect it may have had on the sharpness
or contrast weren't noticeable. Photography stores may even sell you expired
film and chemicals at a discount because they are riskier but often usable.

------
dingo_bat
Whenever I post something to Instagram, I try a lot of filters. But I always
come back to the original. All of them make the picture worse!

------
bwanab
I don't know. This makes me think of a piano that at random times plays a
random note - and sometimes it sounds good. I guess the difference is that
photography isn't real time, so the photographer can throw out all the ones
that don't look good. OTOH, I think I'd rather put my efforts into adding
weird effects to better images than hoping for the best.

~~~
virgil_disgr4ce
A better analogy might be "A piano that's hard or impossible to control with
complete accuracy, but often produces beautiful accidents"

------
013
You can buy them from Amazon, including film for around £40.

I think I might buy one, they look pretty cool.

~~~
germinalphrase
They are fun - but it's the film/developing costs that get you.

~~~
Finnucane
DIY is cheap. And compared to a lot of other things we spend money on,
splurging on a few rolls of film is not a big deal. Paper is what will really
kill you in the darkroom.

~~~
VeejayRampay
That or the highly toxic chemicals, which are probably carcinogenic in some
way.

~~~
Finnucane
Just stay away from the pyrocat. But after 40–something years since I first
went into a darkroom, i’m Not really worried.

