The simple cult camera that inspired Instagram | Hacker News Reader

The simple cult camera that inspired Instagram

bbc.com

81 pointsalistairSH30 comments

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.

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...

[2] http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/04/27/teru-kuwayama-...

Exactly what I came here to say. No history of Instagram would be complete without any mention of Hipstamatic. Seems bizarrely absent.

Yes. Systrom underpinning social and online mechanisms to what Hipstamatic already hit upon was the big inflection point that's being lost to history.

https://www.fastcompany.com/3001994/no-filter-inside-hipstam...

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...

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.

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).

"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.

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

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.

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

6x9 fuji: 54cm^2

35mm frame: 8.4cm^2

That fits roughly 6x

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

Holgas shoot 6x6 or 6x4.5.

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.

Not too hard but will require some patience and up front cost. Things you'll need:

- Curtains/plastic to seal off light in your bathroom ($10-30) OR a darkroom bag ($30)

- Universal film tank w/reel for 120/220 film ($30)

- Chemicals, depends on what film you're shooting with (black and white, C-41 color, E-6 slide color are most common), say $30 for a kit which will work for several rolls if stored properly

- Access to clean or distilled water (priceless)

- Measuring cup or cylinder ($1)

- Thermometer for chemicals and water ($10, not strictly required for "fun DIY" but important if you want any consistency in experimentation)

- Stopwatch (safe light if in a darkroom, if using a bag then your phone is fine)

- Containers for spent chemicals, check your local laws for disposal

The Holga camera is $40 new and 120 film is $5-10 a roll. Shoot a couple rolls. Use your expected least favorite roll to get the feel of getting it on the reel and into the canister for the first time. You'll likely get some fingerprints on the film. If using a bag it'll also steam up if you take a long time. The developing process will probably take 45m or more your first time depending on how organized you are. When you're done you can either look into making prints (similar process as the above but you'll need to purchase an enlarger, paper, trays to soak the paper, and an actual dark room or a really really big bag) OR getting them scanned for $0.50-2 a photo from ScanCafe or a somewhere local.

I would definitely recommend trying black & white first but mainly because it's cheaper to experiment with. Development with E-6 is almost exactly the same difficulty though the results may naturally vary more being in color.

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.

> 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

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.

... 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.

I borrowed a friend's old Canon AE-1 35mm. Not quite the same as the Holga, as the Canon was a nice camera in it's day. Anyways, my biggest "problem" using it that I've become accustomed to instant feedback with digital cameras. I haven't developed anything yet - waiting until I have a few rolls, as the closest shop that still develops in-house is a 30+ minute drive into the city.

That is partly why I had rather just develop my own for black and white. For color the process looks painful enough that I'd rather send it to a lab though

Really easy. I even did it as a kid (12 years old.)

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!

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.

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

It's more like a piano played through a tube amplifier. It can add character, if you're into that, and it can't be reproduced well with digital effects.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com