Does it bother you that people care so little for their photographs that they actually use disc film cameras?

Question

Negatives frames from a disc camera are about the size of your pinkie fingernail. Never saw a good picture from one. My aunt had one, and our Xmas pictures look terrible, and enlarged they look even worse. Pity.

Answer 1

why would it bother me.... I think those are called "snapshots" ;)

Answer 2

By now, anyone who is using disc film is pretty dedicated to that medium. It's hard to find and hard to get it processed.

Hey... Explain Holga and LOMO to me and I'll explain disk cameras to you.

It's fine with me. It's just that if you want to make an 8x10, ASA 100 disk film comes out looking like ASA 1000 in the print. That's not always a bad thing.

Disk film came out at a time when the industry was going through a transition to fine grain films. The thought was that the film quality was so much better - and it was - that you could make a 3R print from a disk film negative and it would be okay.

The typical user didn't trash the disk negatives, either, because it was obvious that you were supposed to handle it by the spindle. Disk film was a transition to APS film, which never really caught on, either.

I wonder how APS would have done in the consumer market if affordable digital cameras didn't become available.

Answer 3

The main reason I am still a film fan is the expense factor. I know that having film developed and printed can be expensive in the long run. But in comparison, scanning a decent print versus using a digital image is still the way to go. To buy a digital camera and lenses with the same capability and resolution as a 35 mm, or two and a quarter, would mean 3 to 5 times the cost. For a professional who is making lots of money, that's no biggie. For those of us who are in the "starving artist" category, and want to produce high quality work, digital still isn't there yet.

Answer 4

I don't shoot with a Lomo camera, but I've seen some pretty creative shots from them. Not my cup of tea, but others find them good tools to express their creativity.

Like was stated earlier, it was a new thing that came out once and made taking pictures easy for the masses to take and develop. Quality might not be like 35mm film, but a bad picture is better than no picture at all.

Answer 5

I'd like to see a shoot-out between a disc camera and a $100 digital.

Might be enlightening.

Answer 6

Couldn't care less what media another photographer chooses to use. Unless of course that photographer is in my employ and I'm counting on them to get the shot. In which case he better be shooting digi, cause I'm too cheap to pay for film (I use expired films for my 35mm, a Canon A-1)

Answer 7

Why is there a correlation between one's equipment and how much they care about their pictures ? For a long long time I made due with a 1975 Minolta SRT201 (no CLC ) manual camera, and I can assure you photographs made with that equipment mean quite a bit to me.

Answer 8

I don't know if these people are any worse than myself who thinks that it is still 1920, and has to break out a 4x5 camera to document every stupid inconsequential sub-atomic detail of my life such as that night 10 years back when I got drunk at dave and busters.

Answer 9

To each their own. I am on a lot a disc prints, from various sources. It was a big thing once. Like 110 spy cameras.

Answer 10

Nope. I'm still using my Minolta film cameras and getting excellent results. That may bother someone who thinks that before digital cameras we preserved memories by scratching pictograms on stone tablets.

Answer 11

It actually bothers me more than someone cares what other people shoot with.