It isn't the camera, it's the photographer. Yeah? Sez who?

You have some friends over to admire your photos. As one of them gushes, "Wow! You must have a really great

camera!", you surreptitiously edge your Canon Mark III /Nikon D3x out of sight and expound, "It isn't the

camera, it is the photographer who takes great photos". Oh yeah? Time to put your money where your mouth is. On

May 1st, a thread will be posted on the Film and Processing forum inviting people to post photos taken with

disposable or other simple and cheap film cameras. No photoshopping allowed except for resizing and perhaps a

touch of sharpening to compensate. Let's see what you can do with a film camera costing less than $20 when new, adjusted for inflation.<BR>

<HR>

<B>NOTE: You can now post your photos at:</B><P>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00WMlL">http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00WMlL</a><HR>

<p>This will interesting to see. I see plenty of awesome photos from digital point and shoots, but never really find anything from point and shoot film cameras. I've never liked the "look" of holga's and other such cameras, but that's all I seem to find when looking for photos taken with a cheap film camera. Where are the film point and shoot photos? Esp. from those disposable ones!</p>

<p>Finally! I was thinking of doing one in the NW forum.</p>

<p>I have a cheap cheapie cheap POS P&S throwaway film camera -- over 12 years old; 3 more shots left... maybe I'll get a good one, scan it and submit.</p>

<p>If i understand James, what you are saying is that you <strong>CANT </strong>get nice image from cheap camera? film or digital? And that anyone whith a big camera <strong>CAN</strong> get amazing images without really putting there talent in the process?.... Why comparing a digital camera that equal a medium format film one vs a 35mm film toy camera? or i just dont get your point correctly?</p>

<p>or what will you try to show / discover / see / experiment..im curious ; )</p>

 

Patrick,

 

No, what I am saying is that even with the severe limitations of a P&S camera, a good photographer can get good photos. Composition is key, of course. The proof will be in the results posted. I expect to see some fine shots.

<p>Cheap film cameras count? I have a few from the thrift shop that were under $10 but wouldn't be fair to use in a disposable camera challenge - I even have an SV with meter that was under $20 and an SRT-202 with a 50/1.4 that was $11... I think the rule needs to be more like "under $20 when new".</p><P>

<HR>

Note: the original post has now been edited to include "when new".

BTW, I used Canon Mark III /Nikon D3x as examples of very expensive cameras. Since the thread is film based I should have used Nikon F6 but that is a lot less expensive.

<p>Hi I took this with Vivitar Ultra Wide & Slim that I bought from Dollorama Toronto ($1).</p><div></div>

<p>Ah, but there are some here who have been working with cameras considerably less sophisticated than modern disposables -- perhaps the greatest of these is Gene M.</p>

<p>If you go to his website (<a href="http://www.westfordcomp.com/" target="_blank">http://www.westfordcomp.com/</a>) you will find not only wonderful "found" photos, but also incredible pictures taken with equipment that is equally incredible in its simplicity, one might even say, "elegance."</p>

<p>I applaud the idea of the theme, but think that the restriction to disposables is too narrow. After all this is the idea behind the whole concept of Lomography or teaching using Holgas and suchlike.</p>

<p>Toronto Downtown ~ Vivitar Ultra Wide & Slim</p><div></div>

Rizwan,

 

Nice shots but this is not the thread to post them on. This is just an informative thread. Post your best shot on the thread that will be posted on May 1st at the Film and Processing forum.

<p>Yeah Rizwan! You're sending the standard too high for a one-dollar camera!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I applaud the idea of the theme, but think that the restriction to disposables is too narrow.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The thread states "or other simple and cheap film cameras." Time for the Hawkeye to shine again.</p>

<p>In court case exhibits for 24x36" and 28x40" color prints; several clients have used disposables for inputs. With better grade one the center is tack sharp and the corners are fair is one wants to sweat details. The center core region on a better premium grade disposable can be in line with a Nikon/Leica/Canon 50mm lens F5.6; ie great. the limit is really camera shake and NOT the lens in the central region. A Flatbed is not enough for a disposable film scan; the central region often warrrants a 2700 or 4000 dpi film scanners scan. Thus the real limit is not the camera; it is the person; since a section of a disposables negative is overkill for a 12x48 foot billboard; or some magazine covers too. </p>

<p>Is a standard Quicksnap a premium grade disposable? I wouldn't want to cheat by using anything that's "premium".</p>

<p>Hey James, I'm on. I've brought my fuji 'Quicksnap' disposal the other day. It cost $2.95. How's that for cheapnest.</p>

<p>

<p>The irony here is that at least some of the photo submitted from cameras costly less then $20 will have been scanned on scanners costing over $2,000.</p>

</p>

<p>This contest misses the point. Saying that it's the photographer not the camera doesn't mean that the camera isn't important. It means that given the same camera, whether it's a single-use camera or a D3x, the better photographer will get better pictures. A better test would be to give a group of casual photographers a "good camera" like a D90 and several lenses and see what photos they produce.</p>

<p>When people say to me that I must have a good camera, I say, "Yes I do".</p>

<p>I used to work with photographers who turned Nikon F3s into disposables . . .</p>

<p>Perhaps, but it's more fun this way. We get to see each others' shots with expensive cameras all the time.</p>

>>> "It isn't the camera, it is the photographer who takes great photos". Oh yeah?

 

Do you honestly feel it's not the photographer?

<p>Just being nit-picking here, but for those who like to bend the rules "Let's see what you can do with a film camera costing less than $20 when new" is probably bendable.</p>

<p>$20 when? I suspect that there may be some pretty good cameras from the 1930s, 40s, 50s that were $20 or less when new....</p>

<p>Maybe "under $20 and/or under $20 when new"</p>

<p>Better would be an additional qualification like "fixed focus". That would include pretty much all the disposables and cheap plastic cameras, as well as old box cameras.</p>

<p>Of course if people really want to cheat they'll just lie about the camera...</p>

Andrew; The lens on the Premium one shot Kodaks is a better lens maybe an aspherical or something. The first time I scanned a negative from one of these I was *TOTALLY* dumbfounded I have never seen a scan be so tack sharp on axis but have so fair the far corners. Its effect is sort of like my 127mm Ektar on a 4x5 speed graphic; really a 3x4 camera lens. Ie tack sharp on axis but margin far corners. My 127mm Ektar is something like 85 lines per mm on axis and 12 at the corners.<P>

 

The premium Kodaks disposable's ; lens is like this; the center is a vast overkill for a dumb 4x6 print but OK for its edges; since only has about a 4x enlargement.<P>

 

The rather striking thing is the center of these premium disposables performance is so high; thus a cropped center can be like it was shot with a great 35mm camera.

Brad -

 

I was just playing devil's advocate in my original post. It is time to show that good photographers can take good photos with simple cameras.

 

Bob,

 

I have now added "adjusted for inflation" in my original post. I think everyone gets the idea, anyway.

 

Scott,

 

The only way to get a film photo on the web is to scan it, either the negative or the print. Or have a CD burned when having the film developed, if you don't have your own film scanner. I doubt if scanning will improve a bad negative, not unless photoshopping is used which is against the rules and the spirit of the proposed idea.