On-line gallery for disposable camera photos

<p>I came across the link below on wired.com and found it very interesting, an on-line magazine/gallery dedicated to images made on disposable cameras. The gallery controls the contributors and actually distributes the disposable cameras to selected individuals who send in a request. There are some specific guidelines for what/when to photograph with the camera.<br>

I found (some of) the photographs quite stunning and provocative. Without the guidelines and rules it would surely be almost 100% noise. It's a throwback to the "snapshot with film camera" days where what you got when you pressed the shutter-release was all you had. I find it interesting today because this hardly exists anymore and there is something about such photographs, their spontaneity, randomness, lack of precision that give them a more life-like quality compared to their more modern counterparts.<br>

I was wondering what other photo.net-ters think of this gallery and the images, and I just wanted to make people aware of this gallery. I DO NOT wonder or care in the least about peoples opinions on the merits or lack thereof of film vs digital.<br>

Here is the on line gallery,<br>

http://www.dispose.co<br>

Here is the wired.com link with their discussion of the concept,<br>

http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2013/07/dispose-magazine</p>

 

<p><em>For me</em> most of those images are uninteresting and technically lacking (which is as kindly as I can put it). I don't really see what "disposable" has to do with anything other than perhaps creating an arbitrary limitation that, based on those, seems insurmountable.</p>

<p>Randomness and lack of precision do <em>not</em> equate to more lifelike. Capturing the moment equates to more lifelike. Those are just instacrap.</p>

<p>Thanks for the links. I found them quite interesting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The process of image-making has shifted mainly to post-production image editing,”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was an interesting comment that I have found to be accurate. I like the spontaneity in the work as well. </p>

<p>I think disposable camera photos are beautiful and find the way they look unique. Because disposable cameras are so simple and basically idiot proof, it allows for vision freedom and a candidness you might not get with a clunky camera.<br>

Thanks for the link, john!</p>

<p>P.s- I see a several professionals names that have contributed to that website. </p>

<p>If you don't have "vision freedom" using even the most complex DSLR, then it's not the camera that's responsible. Just about every camera has a "fully auto" mode that makes it quite literally a "point and shoot". Same applies to every non-disposable comact digicam.</p>

<p>Whats easier to use a plastic camera that weighs a couple ounces or a dslr-slr that weighs a couple pounds ? Experiencing arm pump Bob Atkins or are you always this uptight?</p>

<blockquote>

<p> it allows for vision freedom</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

If you need a certain type of camera for vision, you have a seeing problem.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Experiencing arm pump Bob Atkins or are you always this uptight?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ad hominum attacks are not permitted here. You've already been suspended from one forum, try not to make it two.</p>

<p>It's an interesting concept, but from the photos on the links here I don't see anything out of the ordinary about the photos. A snapshot is a snapshot, right? Whether it's taken w/ a digital P&S, a disposable film camera, a Leica M9, or whatever. Isn't it just Lomo II? Celebrating bad exposure and unconcerned composition?</p>

<p>I used to shoot w/ an even simpler camera, if that's what you would call it. It was one of those little plastic $3 key chain cameras that took 110 film. It was nothing more than a little plastic shell to put the 110 film cartridge into, and it had a one speed shutter and a plastic lens. Back then you could buy real 110 B&W film, and when I saw the results from that little camera I was really impressed. Everyone I showed the photos to said "you took these w/ that"? I wasn't shooting snapshots though, I was composing carefully and trying to make a "good" photo. I liked the results very much, but the results came from the usual stuff. Good composition, decent light, good Kodak B&W film, proper development and printing (I'd simply dropped the film off to be developed and printed at a camera store on Market Street in S.F., and what I got back was just what I had shot), etc. Maybe my point is that if you (they) have to call attention to the type of camera used, and the criteria for how it was used, rather than just looking at the image itself, there's a problem. Just my take on it.</p>

<p>I find the remarks here infinitely more interesting :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“<strong>The process of image-making has shifted mainly to post-production image editing</strong>,” explains Dispose. “This means we are less aware in the moment that we are taking and capturing the image. We become distanced from the object and events we are photographing.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>These people sound like clowns. Just get out there and take good pictures. I don't want to hear the submissions can only be film or digital or taken with a plastic lens or whatever other gimmicks. Just make nice art... of which most of the stuff on that site isn't. I guess for the teenage readers of "Wired" it is news to them that people can make images with film... or that film is even still sold.</p>

<p>Trouble is, I can't stand to see a "one use" camera used only once. Just gotta find ways to reload them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can't stand to see a "one use" camera used only once.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree strongly with this. I am troubled by the present day view that "disposable" is a feature. This extends beyond the obvious like the cameras in this thread, but the more general view that continuous upgrade (and disposing of last years version of whatever) is a sign of status and intelligence or whatever. But that notion can lead us off into a whole other area of disagreement and name calling ;-)<br>

In general I have to say that I find elements to agree with in most of the comments made in this thread (except for the "arm strain and uptight" silliness). We can disagree on whether any of the posted photographs are 'good' or 'interesting' or not, that's what makes taking and sharing photographs worthwhile, if we all agreed in our judgements it would be pretty boring.</p>