11 ms·
Falling in love again with disposable cameras
- brudgers 2y agohttps://archive.ph/pHRj9 https://archive.ph/pHRj9
- smartis2812 2y agoIf we hadn't enough things destroying our environment, no we have to bring back obsolete things too..
- imp0cat 2y agoObsolete things attract hipster influencers and from there on it just snowballs.
- posterman 2y agoI am sure you have some type of hobby or passion that uses resources in a wasteful or "obsolete" way. cast your environmentalist critique in meaningful ways and stop diluting its punch by targeting kids and their consumptive practices. just because you dont "get it" doesnt mean its catching forests on fire, and doesn't mean its "obsolete". i have pictures from disposable cameras that carry unbelievable sentimental value to me and my family, and those pictures were taken alongside some on my fancy mirrorless camera and my wifes iphone. guess which photos live in the cloud and which adorn our bookshelves? am i supposed to feel responsible for rising sea tides because i bought a four dollar camera and documented a beach trip?
- gnutrino 2y agoYes you should feel responsible.
- linuxftw 2y agoThink of the electricity you're wasting just by using this website and browsing the internet for entertainment purposes.
- gond 2y agoJustifying doing something wrong by stating that someone else did equally bad or worse is not a valid argument. By this reasoning, some random EU country could raise co2 emissions, stating that China is even worse. Problem is: the Planet does not care about artificial, man made boundaries. To your last question: Yes, you should feel responsible. Who else could be? The point is to be conscious about what you do. Not everybody can be the best version of oneself, all the time, me included. However, denial is probably the worst of all reactions to this problem.
- 23B1 2y agoThis is a silly argument made by environmentalists for decades now, often to promote failed policies; plastic recycling, ethanol subsidies, and most egregious the prevention of progress around nuclear power. Not only does moralizing often backfire, it has an embedding effect that prevents actual progress.
- lxgr 2y agoThe other end of the spectrum to moralizing is completely negating any personal agency over resource consumption that each of us has. And unlike for things like "flight shaming", there is an alternative here. Also, quite often non-disposable objects feel much more pleasant to use: Cutlery, glasses vs. plastic cups etc., just to name a few, so promoting reusable products over single-use plastic crap is a win-win in my book. I'd definitely add film cameras to that list.
- posterman 2y agoits... wrong to use a disposable camera?
- lxgr 2y ago> cast your environmentalist critique in meaningful ways and stop diluting its punch by targeting kids and their consumptive practices All of these can be true at the same time: Changes to individual consumption habits will not save the planet alone; these changes can still make an impact in aggregate; it can still feel nice to use a film camera while at the same time considering the environmental impact and maybe limiting their use to moments that really matter and not just a novelty thing. And if people really (re)discover their love for film: Buy a used film camera! You'll get infinitely better results than from a disposable camera and will be able to resell it for practically no loss in value. I've bought a couple of vinyl records of bands/records that I really like, but would feel quite bad about buying every record that I like that way, since producing them and shipping them around the world does seem like a pretty big resource expenditure for something that a file on my computer can achieve in much higher fidelity. > guess which photos live in the cloud and which adorn our bookshelves? You're aware that photo printing exists, right?
- jgalt212 2y agoIndeed, but probably less damaging than buying a digital camera that only got used once.
- cogman10 2y agoPractically everyone now-a-days has a digital camera in their pockets, a cell phone. Dedicated cameras aren't purchased nearly as often because you need a pretty substantial jump in quality to compete with cell phone cameras at this point. You could argue the rate of cellphone disposal is no good.
- 23B1 2y agoI'd be willing to bet there are more cellphones disposed of each year than rolls of film developed. The former's market is almost certainly an order of magnitude larger than disposable cameras.
- lxgr 2y agoA disposable film camera isn't a replacement for a digital camera, it's a replacement for a potato with analog film and the bottom of a beer bottle as a lens grafted onto/into it.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 23B1 2y agoI'd be curious to know if this is a fair comparison. A brief search revealed little. I can see either side of the argument, and probably the result would change based on bounding conditions; for instance, how many more people have 'cameras' in their pocket today compared to 20 years ago? And a lot of chemicals in photo processing are reused over and over to develop rolls of film – maybe it's more efficient to have one central lab processing photos than a billion phone batteries going into landfill every year?
- jonfw 2y agonobody is going to get rid of their phone though... they're just going to have a phone and a disposable camera
- 23B1 2y agoActually I have slowly been moving off my cellphone and there's a growing number of young people who are doing the same. Also: "Five billion phones to be thrown away in 2022" https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63245150 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63245150
- 1over137 2y agoA growing number? Double nothing is still nothing.
- jwagenet 2y agoWait until you see how much plastic is used one time and then thrown out as packaging for parts in manufacturing plants.
- byefruit 2y agoExactly. There's no point stopping unnecessary and wasteful practices until all other unnecessary and wasteful practises have ceased first.
- kd913 2y agoDoes it really need saying? We know it is terrible, we know there is microplastics almost everywhere. At this point it feels like little Timmy playing with fireworks next to the forest fire. Everyone and everything involved is terrible. Timmy still needs a scolding for being a moron.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- gumby 2y agoThe only reason to "save"* the environment is so that people can keep peopling. Think of the waste in making a movie -- to me 100% dead weight (I have no interest in movies) but to other people definitely worth it. Who am I to decide what's a waste, in this regard? * the environment will do just fine if we make all the vertebrates extinct. We just happen to feel otherwise.
- jszymborski 2y agoI've a Kodak Ektar H35 which is ostensibly a half-frame reusable disposable camera w.r.t. specs and price. Because it's half-frame it also takes twice as many photos per roll of film
- rndmio 2y agoNostalgia isn't what it used to be.
- bookofjoe 2y agoOrigin of this quote: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/07/06/nostalgia-is-not/#google_vignette https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/07/06/nostalgia-is-not/#g...
- zecg 2y ago[flagged]
- batch12 2y agoI never loved disposable cameras. The pictures were terrible but the ability to pick one up anywhere made it convenient. At least maybe fall in love with 110 cameras.
- jermaustin1 2y agoI just recently picked up a 110 Minolta scuba camera at an estate sale. I haven't been able to find any 110 film cartridges around me, so I'll probably put in an order at B&H.
- PrivateButts 2y agoLomography is the source for 110 film at this point
- cooper_ganglia 2y agoI want disposable cameras to make a comeback a big way. Nothing compares to film, it just looks like memories. It’s convenient to be able to shoot film without the commitment of buying a camera + film and learning how to use it. imo, every person should go through at least a few disposable cameras in their lives! :)
- ryukoposting 2y agoFilm has had a big resurgence since 2020. Just ask your local photo lab - yes, there's probably one still hanging around. Just one, though. And yes, they probably still develop color negative film in house. They'll even digitize it for you, as long as you bring a flash drive! I'm part of the trend - I have a couple Minolta SLRs, 8(?) lenses, a couple point-and-shoots, and even a medium-format camera. There's a Yashica Electro 35 sitting in my lap as I type this. If you want to play around with film, do the planet a favor and dig up your (or your parents') old 35mm camera instead of buying disposables. It's better off used than collecting dust in a basement. That's just my two cents, though.
- silverquiet 2y agoAt this point, I think the magic is in black and white and the darkroom (not that I have much of the wherewithal to do it these days). C-41 or E-6 color means you still need someone to develop and then scan them which just seems like digital with extra steps. I worked in a photo lab in the waning days of film and really enjoyed shooting it when I had access to all that equipment, but it just isn't the same since I've moved on. Whatever people decide to do, I agree with you about skipping disposables and getting something vintage. There are a lot of gems out there - your Electro is certainly one of them, though I'd probably look at a lot of the Olympus point and shoots, though pricing seems to reflect the fact that they were quite good and are becoming a bit scarce; it seems like we're long past the point where the mainstream has unloaded all their 35mm gear for cheap.
- kjkjadksj 2y agoIf you are self developing black and white you ought to do your own prints too with an enlarger. Its like another chance to expose the shot and play with all that is involved there.
- prvc 2y agoIs there any type of consumer camera equipment which hasn't experienced a (real or astroturfed) nostalgia-based "comeback"?
- eclecticfrank 2y agoYes, the APS system. For many reasons. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Photo_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Photo_System
- prvc 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APS-C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APS-C
- ikekkdcjkfke 2y agoInstead of IMAX, Dolby and all the other gimmicks they should do "gourmet" film where tye entire pipeline is analog and never has a digital step
- whartung 2y agoOh, I was a big fan of my APS camera. Took all sorts of shots with it. Got a whole bunch of these "now, what photo album, exactly, can we put these in" panoramic shots from it. I enjoyed the film handling, the dating of the prints, the size of the camera, battery life, etc. I even took advantage of being able to stop in mid-roll, and toss in a different one, and swap back. It definitely went the way of the dodo, not all labs properly supported it (like not printing the date on the back of the photo). But as a casual photo consumer, it worked really well for me. One of my most cherished photos, and it's, honestly, a terrible photo, which is part of its charm, was taken with my APS camera. It's a picture of my now wife and myself on a beach in Catalina from the weekend I proposed to her. The composition is terrible, we're way too small, and, even better, somehow, someway, there's a single shadow of a light pole that crosses the beach and right. through. us. A few inches either way, and it would have not been an issue. We couldn't have staged it worse. It's a perfectly bad picture of a great day, and I love it. Nothing to do with APS, mind, just that I took it with that camera. It had a timer :).
- eclecticfrank 2y agoMost non-disposible point and shoot film cameras are cheaper and have much better optics when bought used. But for film companies this is a great product. They can sell their film with added plastic bits and a flash for a decent markup.
- paulryanrogers 2y agoBad for the environment though. When I worked in 1-hour photo those plastic bits went straight to the trash after extracting the film.
- jbosh 2y agoBut have you thought about the shareholders?
- yencabulator 2y agoCan we put the shareholders outside the environment? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM)
- gonzo41 2y agoHalf of all plastics ever manufactured have been made in the last 15 years. https://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2024/04/17/earth-day-2024-planet-vs-plastic/?sh=7f429c282352 https://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2024/04/17/earth-day-2024-p... it's an issue.
- rvba 2y agoDisposable garbage cameras aside.. World population was around 3 billion in 1960s, now it is more than 8 billion. More people means more plastic is manufactured. Note: I dont say anything against recycling, in fact we should do it.
- optimussupreme 2y ago
- 23B1 2y agoShooting on film is a protest against the ubiquity and inhumanness of digital photography, and ultimately the commodification of memory. I use a polaroid camera these days. It is messy and wrong and dark and unreliable and bulky and expensive; the exact opposite of the (awesome! but also generic and boring) iphone in my pocket. Leave some room for frivolity in your life.
- imp0cat 2y agoI use an Instax camera (the Fuji version of Polaroid), too. However, I do not see it as any kind of protest. I just really like the way it works (instant photos? magic!). However, the refills are expensive and the camera itself is very rudimentary (manual focus, limited control). OTOH, thanks to the simplicity, it is very easy to take apart and fix.
- billfruit 2y agoYou can achieve some of the same effect by using one of the early 2000s, less refined digital cameras. I think, there is an early-digital point and shoot revival going on. Atleast it will be much cheaper than film.
- kjkjadksj 2y agoI’ve seen one of those digital cameras pulled out at a bar but they have not aged as well as the film cameras. For one, the lcd screen you rely upon for everything was totally yellowed to the point of almost not seeing anything on the screen. No clue about battery life or if all the buttons worked but if it was like my old digital cams probably not good. These things could be 25 years old now. Only a few like the canon powrshot were truly prosumer.
- cjk2 2y agoYou can also do it on my Nikon Z6-ii ! And you can take not shit photos with it as well!
- AequitasOmnibus 2y ago> a protest against the ubiquity and inhumanness of digital photography A protest to the tune of approximately $1 per photo. I love my 35mm SLR but shooting on it is extremely cost prohibitive. Digital photography doesn’t have to be inhumane, it’s more about the user than the technology.
- c5karl 2y agoYou'll need to excuse the Washington Post Style section, which exists to explain the outside world to sheltered Boomers, even if it means vomiting up 2,000 words about an anecdote to make it look like a trend.
- earthboundkid 2y agoI got into this in the 2000s and 2010s by which point it was already obsolete-ish. There are levels and levels of bad cameras people can get into for fun: Polaroids, lomography, Holga, Instagram filters, GameBoy camera, Nintendo DSi, Nintendo 3DS. On the video side, all music videos are now made on VHS for a retrolook, but back in the actual 90s, you would show you were artistic by shooting on 8mm. I'm sure that soon all the music videos will shift to being shot on Flip cameras as the cohort of newly 20-something videographers remember that from their own childhoods.
- jjulius 2y ago>... all music videos are now made on VHS... All of them?
- earthboundkid 2y agoYes.
- jjulius 2y agoI mean, you know that's just not true, yeah?
- earthboundkid 2y agoNo, it is 100% literally true that there is not a single exception to the trend of all music videos being shot on VHS now. This is how language works. All quantifications are always exact quantifications, and there are never any humorous exaggerations.
- jjulius 2y agoOh hell yeah, always a fun time when the person who failed to convey their humor gets snarky and annoyed at people who don't pick up on it. You have a great day there, buddy! Lemme know if you want a hug!
- i_am_proteus 2y agoLomography makes a $25 reloadable "disposable" camera (35mm film, AA battery) for those who want the aesthetic without the landfill burden.
- wrboyce 2y agoI haven’t used the Lomo one but I had the Harman version and it absolutely sucked. Definitely would not recommend it.
- tokai 2y agoThat is surprisingly the allure for some people.
- i_am_proteus 2y agoI think that's the design. Decent metering 35mm SLRs can be had for $100-150. Given that film is about $25 a roll to purchase and get lab-developed, cheap cameras are basically film toys. At least Lomo deliberately leans in to the aesthetic; it seems to be something people want.
- anigbrowl 2y agoLomo stuff is lightweight but well made.
- jccalhoun 2y agoquoting two people who do something doesn't make it a trend.
- bloopernova 2y agoBut unfortunately it does fill article or word quotas. I deeply dislike journalism shovelware.
- insane_dreamer 2y agoPolaroid-type instant cameras are fun; but I fail to see any benefit over the same thing but non-disposable (other than shareholder value and environmental waste). I'll pass.
- dgfitz 2y agoI can't put my finger on it, but I absolutely hate the grammar of the title. It somehow feels misleading. I guess it's just classic clickbait that bothers me more than usual.
- verisimi 2y agoThe 'again' is misplaced, imo. And then one has to wonder whether this person was ever in love with them before.
- arturkesik 2y agoDon't want to be this guy - but isn't this article just an ad for fujifilm? The author only mentions fujifilm and there is a link to buy one of these cameras right at the beginning. Maybe it's more of a try to generate a trend then a real trend the journalist is describing?
- flobosg 2y agoSome weeks ago, coincidentally, I took an old drugstore brand disposable camera I found lying around in my flat for a weekend trip. The AA battery was corroded and dead, but otherwise the camera worked just fine. The trip was actually a bachelor party, so in the end I gave the camera to the groom and he got it developed. Mostly average shots, along with a few very nice highlights. Would do again.
- underlines 2y agoJust get a refurbished film camera like the excellent Canon AE-1 Program and enjoy film photography. The chemicals used for developing color film are bad enough already, no need to add pollution by single use plastic to the problem again.
- ghaff 2y agoI wouldn’t do color though. B&W is super-simple. Need more gear for printing blowups obviously. Stating with color is probably a recipe for frustration. Back in the film day pretty much no one started out with color.
- taylodl 2y agoNo one started with color - and most people kept it that way! Color is a real pain in the ass to work with in a traditional dark room setting. Having started my photography career in an actual dark room, I understand why newbies are interested in the process and there should definitely be community resources available where they can learn the ropes of film and paper photography. But then they need to move on. Yes, I fondly remember my days working in the dark room. No, I don't want to go back to working in the dark room and always smelling like fixer afterward. Hmmm...thiosulfate smells good! NOT!!!
- ghaff 2y agoPersonally I don’t disagree but I’m also not going to tell people what they can and cannot do. But other than processing a roll or two of B&W film, much more than that gets pretty frustrating in the absence of a properly kitted-out darkroom. It’s not something I’d make a personal investment and I doubt anyone doing this has the spare room at home. I’d probably start by trying to find a local camera club that probably has some camera gear to loan/rent.
- taylodl 2y agoThat's why I was thinking a community resource would be nice. A fully kitted-out darkroom available to lease out in 2 hour chunks. Lessons available for new people. I do think everybody should do it a few times. Also there's a few times I'd want to use an actual darkroom for some projects, but like you say, I'm not dedicating the space and funding to a darkroom. But I'd gladly pay, say $50, to use a darkroom for a couple hours. Heck, I'd pay to lease out some cameras. It's been a long time since I've used a Hasselblad medium format!
- fancyfredbot 2y agoI need to make an app which doesn't let you preview your photos, waits until you've taken 24, then mails you a hard copy a week later for a ridiculous fee. Optionally I'll also create some plastic waste and put it in landfill for you. Hipsters will love it and I'll be rich. The end.
- timonoko 2y agoI have whole album of disposable images. It was difficult to keep heavier cameras at arms length, so those cameras were foremostly selfie cameras. https://photos.app.goo.gl/iqRRtoFxwq771NLG2 https://photos.app.goo.gl/iqRRtoFxwq771NLG2
- 23B1 2y agoAn amazing collection and it looks like you're living a great life!
- atoav 2y agoA student in my media workshop works at a photolab and wants to make a project with the container filled with old disposable cameras. The flash is still working, so we built a small PCB that allows us to trigger the flash from a microcontroller. She is going to use that for a permanently flashing art sculpture (I made sure to inform her about epilepsy and her need to inform people before they are exposed to the sculpture). If you're photografing consider just getting a small second hand camera instead — less wasteful, better pics, even if you get a shitty camera.
- hbarka 2y agoFujicolor was featured in this article. Interestingly, the Fujinon line of cameras which do film emulation, like the Fuji X100v and X100vi, are almost always sold out. The nostalgia for the beautiful “film look” is a blessing to Fuji because of their heritage in the film industry. They translated their proprietary film line into digital cameras with JPEG* emulations and are finding great demand to the point where they had to pause orders and expand manufacturing. * https://youtu.be/jNb4hPvLWYQ https://youtu.be/jNb4hPvLWYQ
- ryukoposting 2y ago> The nostalgia for the beautiful “film look” is a blessing to Fuji because of their heritage in the film industry I'm not so sure it's actually helping their film business much. They've discontinued Superia and 400H, their two mainstay color negative films. The "Fuji 200" and "Fuji 400" sold today are known to be repackaged Kodak Gold and UltraMax, respectively. Fuji's slide films soldier on, but supply is extremely limited. To get a new 35mm roll of Velvia in the US, you're looking at a multi-week backorder through an online retailer, or you're going to a local shop and praying they have some in stock. Neopan seems to be doing fine, but that's not saying much. If the only film they can make in-house at a volume commensurate with demand is a single black-and-white stock, that's a dire situation for such a huge operation.
- anonlawyer 2y agoAll of the Fuji slide films are approaching $30 a roll now on the rare occasions they are available. The only black-and-white film Fuji is currently selling is "Neopan 100 Acros II," which is actually now made for them in the UK by Ilford.
- ryukoposting 2y agoYikes, I didn't realize Ilford was manufacturing Neopan (I guess the construction of the canister should have been a giveaway though). For what it's worth, Neopan's definitely not a rehashed Ilford product - its reciprocity characteristics are totally unique in the industry. I keep some around for easy long exposures.
- cjk2 2y agoThe things are bloody awful and only bring back the longing misery of not being able to afford something less than awful for me. The things weren't even a match for a cheap no brand 35mm compact in the end. Plus they are instant trash. Nothing likeable at all. The day I got an n-th hand East German 35mm SLR in the mid-80s the world was good again.
- anonlawyer 2y agoPersonally I think a big reason disposable cameras are having a resurgence is that the camera makers have abandoned the compact camera market and don't seem to be interested in making or marketing any camera they can't sell for at least $1,000. That much money can buy a lot of film. For anyone willing to put in even the slightest effort to learn the basics of photography, picking up an inexpensive used film camera will be much better than a disposable or the "reusable disposable" super-cheap new film cameras available now. I have several 40–50 year old film cameras that continue to work just fine, and it's a pleasure to own a physical object that continues to function perfectly for decades, in stark contrast to disposable products and the planned obsolescence of virtually everything you can buy today. Further, the UI/UX of most digital cameras is horrible, with dozens of confusing settings. It's much easier to use an all manual camera like (for example) a Pentax K1000 and set everything yourself than to figure out how to make a digital camera's dozens of settings and automatic functions do what you want them to. Most new DSLRs and mirrorless cameras have user manuals approaching 900 pages!
- throwaway22032 2y agoSomething about this comment thread just makes me feel really sad. It's like my childhood is just gone. Not the cameras, not the film. Just the sense of - yeah, man, go and do that cool thing. Yes, disposable things cause trash. A thousand of these things could probably fit in my dustbin. Even back in the day with no other options we maybe used 20-50 of them in my entire childhood. You're allowed to be happy, you know. Them and you too. Time to log off.