Re: Another 35mm film post
- From: "Fred Anonymous" <anon@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:14:41 +0100
"Scott W" <biphoto@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:16d7af01-907c-45a9-a2d9-76255a21f61c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 29, 9:41 am, "Ken Hart1" <kwha...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You can't expect razor sharp prints from a disposable camera, but OTOH, if
I
needed a camera and didn't have anything else, a disposable sure beats
trying to make a pinhole in a coffee-can.
And yes, I do carry one in my truck glovebox for insurance purposes.
Very true.
For the money they don't do too bad, in very good light at least.
You can get a decent 4x6 inch print from them, and at one time that
was what many people were after.
But even a couple of years ago it seemed like I saw a fair number on
the beaches, not very few.
My best guess is cell phones have replaced them, and before others
say, it most cell phones take way worse photos, IMO.
Scott
Hi Scott.
I agree with you that cellphones are the norm for casual photography. Most
of my friends want the photos on their PCs and it is easy to transfer photos
from the phone to the PC.
Still plenty of single-use cameras in the shops here in the UK.
Surprisingly, there's also plenty of film.
Regards, Ian.
Nottingham, UK.
.
- References:
- Another 35mm film post
- From: Scott W
- Re: Another 35mm film post
- From: Alan Browne
- Re: Another 35mm film post
- From: Ken Hart1
- Re: Another 35mm film post
- From: Scott W
- Another 35mm film post
- Prev by Date: Re: - For Scott W - Hummingbird in flight
- Previous by thread: Re: Another 35mm film post
- Next by thread: Re: Aussie beauty is really just a laughing jackass.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading