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

[jpo3136b]

<p>I am excited to see what people are going to post.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

It was Mr. O'Keefe--Odom who first proposed the disposable camera challenge. Here are his guidlines:<P>

 

<p>Some people have asked about various exceptions and specifics about restrictions. Keep in mind the picture post will include a brief statement on how you made the picture. We can't anticipate every possible variation of a situation that may arise. So, look at the guidelines, <strong>have fun</strong>, make the best picture you can.<br>

Leading rules for the challenge:</p>

<ul>

<li>C-41 process film</li>

<li>Spring shutter</li>

<li>Unadjustable lens</li>

<li>Basic film advance</li>

<li>No accessories</li>

<li>Available light</li>

<li>Post includes a statement about how the photo was made. </li>

</ul>

<p>The challenge is for disposable (now known as Single Use) cameras, but if you can meet the equipment requirements with a reload-able camera you have on hand: that's good, too. Main idea is to see the best composition you can make with limited tools. What can you do with your choices when the tools and the processing are all plain and the same?<br>

Thread goes up on the first of May.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>I saw a video once of the late portrait and wedding master, Monte Zucker. He was using a Kodak disposable wedding camera, and a few reflectors. He positioned his beautiful female model on a porch, shaded from above but lit by the sky's light. And filled in here and there with reflectors.</p>

<p>His un-cropped ,un retouched results looked as if a master portraitist had shot them! Because one had. He utilized "wrap around", natural soft light , along with great posing technique. And he created gorgeous portraits with a $4 camera, with a plastic fixed lens.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>It sounds like an amusing contest. In addition, though, I should point out that you can see many photographs of the type being discussed here if you go to the Classic Manual Camera forum, where many people show pictures taken with both simple and sophisticated cameras. Look especially for threads begun by Gene M, who can get something worth looking at out of just about anything that resembles a camera.</p>

<p> </p>

[Jerry_]

<p>"...with a plastic fixed lens." And did the video maker use a 1930s rig to produce the video?<br>

Not likely.</p>

<p>The table wedding camera boxes are neat, and good for 4x6 prints *maybe* -- but going to 11x14-inch in reprint size is not going to get you decent results. Reflectors, lighting, et al., due to the neat plastic fixed lens.</p>

<p> </p>

[tholte]

<p>One of my all time favorite images here on PN is "Little Diver" taken by Eric Larson. It was taken with a $7 disposable camera. The lighting, subject and composition are wonderful. If any one takes a photo half as good as this one, they have been successful. I forgot how to link the image to show it here, sorry!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>"Spring shutter"? Darn. There goes my oatmeal container pinhole camera. Mebbe I can rig up a spring-loaded cap over the pinhole to qualify.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>It's gonna take two fences of barbed wire and a pair of flame throwers on the left and right to get you guys herded into the thread. Until some dude shows up in his homemade insulated fireproof suit!</p>

<p>Yes, you can tape a piece of paper that says, "Leica," to the front of the disposable camera.<br /> Yes, you can use your private 747's headlights to paint "light trails" in front of the disposable camera.<br /> Yes, you can pose a nude model in front of the disposable camera. Please pick someone attractive. Thanks.<br /> Yes, you can try to make a picture in a cave, in total darkness, with no light at all, and the disposable camera.<br /> Yes, you can duct tape the disposable camera into three layers of condoms and dive into the swimming pool with it and try to make a photo. <br /> Yes, you can use a nuclear reactor leak to expose the film through the walls of the disposable camera.<br /> X-rays from airport scans to paint graffiti on the emulsion that says, "I Hate Airport Luggage Fees," also acceptable. Yes, it will take 85 trips with 400ASA film or higher. . .</p>

<p> </p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>What is interesting is the amount of 8x10's and 11x14s I print from those wedding disposables; it the lighting is good results can be good. In some weddings the bulk of the wedding photos folks get are from these; there are more shots fired; that ups the averages. Results vary *all of the map* with these types of cameras.</p>

<p>In court case work several firms used the premium one shots for about a decade; all used for my 24x36 and 28x40" court case exhibits. What is sad is the other side once used a pro with MF gear a RB67 and the images were often the same or *alot* worse; ie no DOF; dumb camera shake issues; crazy stuff. Here I am printing both sides exhibits; and the 25 year old secretarys disposable crushed many of the pros 6x7 stuff.</p>

 

[brucecahn]

<p>"It is not the camera", etc, is a common fallacy. And a ridiculous one at that. I keep a $10,000+ view camera because I can get the same results with a disposable? Absurd. Of course if you are a good photog you can get something good with any camera, but there will be a big difference in the results. Would like to enter your contest, but have no scanner. </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>C-41 film? How an I supposed to process that? I don't think any of the local supermarkets still accept film for processing. At least open it up to home B&W processing.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I think it should be interesting. I was looking forward to putting a roll of B&W through my Box Brownie. That was the point and shoot of its time. Does it need to be 35mm or is a Box Brownie simple enough.</p>

[william_johnston1]

<p>I had always had a passion for photography, and had my fist SLR at the age of 18, a Richo XR7, for the geeks out there.<br>

When at the age of 21 I got married I could no longer afford the hobby, and my dear wife, throughout all may camera equipment (We nearly Divorced over it). <br>

With a family of four children, I could not aford to by a mega camera, and so used an ordinary digital camera when my daughter go married.... My photos were far better than the Pro Photographer. Over the next few years I was at a number of weddings, with my trusty camera, and kept having better photos than the pros...<br>

So following some pressure from family and friends I set up a website with my photos and began taking bookings for weddings. I now use a Canon 5d MK11, but although the quality of the image is far better than with my little Fuji, the style and framing of images is all me.<br>

Camera or photographer, both..... a crap photographer will be crap with a great camera, a great photographer will be a great photographer with a basic camera.</p>

 

[steve_levine]

<p>Bruce: Any mini-lab that processes C41, can make you a CD. No scanner is needed.</p>

<p>Bob: I'm not sure if they're still manufactured but, I have seen disposables (cardboard Leicas) that come with TCN-400,B&W in them.</p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>good photographers can take good photos</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Umm; can anyone define a (good) photographer or a (good) photo)?<br>

The definitions alone will encompass more than the number of pics submitted.</p>

<p>What is the benchmark?</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>Choose your weapons. Apparently the TCN "single use cameras" are no longer offered. These could still be out on store shelves though. I recall seeing them at weddings a few years ago.</p>

<p>http://store.kodak.com/store/ekconsus/en_US/list/Single_Use_Cameras/categoryID.28889900</p>

<p>http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/quicksnap/index.html</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>Listed as "un-available" at Amazon. But I'm ever hopeful.</p><div></div>

[jay a. frew]

<p>I hope there are as many photo submissions as there are comments in this thread.</p>

<p>I think this is a good idea and it should be fun.</p>

<p>Too bad you didn't set the photo capture date as 02 May to coincide with this:</p>

<p>http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/about-3/</p>

<p>It would have added another layer of interest.</p>

<p>Maybe if this idea is successful, it could be an annual photo.net event.</p>

<p>For the Cannucks out there, "Blacks" has an underwater, single-use camera for $17.99. It is loaded with Superia X-tra 800. Here is the link:</p>

<p>http://www.blackphoto.com/blacks/jump/product/7755/Fuji+Underwater+Single-Use+Camera/cat40004/Film+Cameras/product.jsp?prdId=7755</p>

<p>Maybe future challenges could be based on digital cameras costing less than $20.00 (or so). I have seen some very inexpensive "key chain" digi-cams and it seems like disposable film cameras are on the endangered species list.</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I got some C-41 done at the corner drug store yesterday. It's not impossible. Cost about $2. I only made two prints; I think they cost about 75¢.</p>

[riz]

<p>James and Ken,</p>

<p>Sorry :) But its a fact its from Dollarama.......</p>

[DB_Gallery]

Wow, I squander $10 worth of data roaming from Paris to post a link to photos taken in the spirit of "it's not the camera, it

is the photographer" and it gets deleted? Sorry Josh, but there is no excuse for this, the

Mod could at least email me why, oui?

 

I guess if you want to know what I am up to and what the images were, look up my site in my info. At least this post was on wifi...

 

But seriously, congrats guys, I am fully done with this site, when I get back to the states I am deleting my images. You all

have fun beating the dead horses now.

[sarah_fox]

<p>This won't really prove anything. A good photographer can get a good photo from a cheap/horrible camera. We'll easily see/establish that. However, a good photographer can't get as many good photos with as much consistency, with as much technical quality, and under as great a variety of conditions, unless he or she uses a much better camera/lens/lighting/etc.</p>

<p>A more telling contest would be for us photographers to hand our "professional" cameras to rank amateurs and ask them to take a few "professional" pictures. Then post the results. Now THAT would be a fun contest! ;-)</p>

<p>-----------</p>

<p>Daniel, I'm mostly posting to ask you not to leave us. We agree on virtually nothing. You're overly rigid and bull-headed, but you articulate your POV very well. I even consider you somewhat of a friend in an adversarial sort of way. I'd hate to see you go. ;-)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>(re certain parties leaving or not)<br /> It took 10 years to get to this point? You get one post deleted and you're sore? Many of us have had a lot of things deleted, even sometimes unjustly, in our own opinion. Nobody likes to get deleted, but part of what makes this an interesting and usable site is that it is moderated, even if sometimes with a heavy hand. I have seen a lot of similar sites run into the ground by predators who roam the web looking for new sites to consume and trash.</p>

[tholte]

<p>"But seriously, congrats guys, I am fully done with this site, when I get back to the states I am deleting my images. You all have fun beating the dead horses now." Daniel, I have kept track over the last two years and you have said this same thing at least four times. I hope you don't really mean it this time because I enjoy your film-kodachrome only stuff. I would really like to see what you can produce in a few days with a $7.00 disposable camera, just like I would of anyone here that thinks they know what photography is all about. And yes, I went to Walmart and bought a two pack of fuji disposables for $8.00. </p>

[hjoseph7]

Some people take perfectly exposed, horrible photos that have no meaning...