Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,961   Posts: 1,523,129   Online: 967
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: Disposables?

  1. #11
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,010
    Interesting parking job.

    Steve
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    11
    This sounds like a lot of fun. I'll have to go out and get a disposable later today and put some bw film in it.

    I also found these step by step instructions for reloading Kodak disposables: http://www.camerahacker.com/re-use_camera/index.php You need a darkroom, but that shouldn't be a problem for 99% of this site.
    A quick google yields a few more sites, too.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by rphenning View Post
    it definitely gives that look.
    I would disagree. Disposable camera images don't look anything like Holga, et. al. pictures to me. I agree disposable camera images aren’t great, but they have a consistent engineered look to them. The image imperfection are balanced across the image surface, yielding as good an image as could be expected at that low price point. Surly these images don’t look like they were taken with a Leica, but you would be hard pressed to make improvements without significantly adding to the manufacturing cost of the camera, regardless of the number of hours of optical engineering you put into the effort.

    Conversely, an image from a Holga type camera shows imbalanced imperfections. These images look like multiple incompetent optical engineers slaved completely independently and without any cohesive concept in mind. The resulting components were then just jammed together to make a camera. For example, the lens may have a sweet spot but it certainly doesn't cover the entire image surface. It's like the lens designer was working on a 35mm lens and then had it installed in a 120 camera body. The body design might have been done by the marketing department by someone that didn’t even know that the body had to be light tight but had his idea of what a camera should look like. I could go on - but why. That's half the fun with these cameras.

    Denis K

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin