Disposable Camera Thread

File: Photo17_14A.jpg (906KB, 1012x672px) Image search: [Google]

906KB, 1012x672px

Oi, I just learn how to resize

>>3054953
I do not believe that these were shot on a disposable.

>>3054966
fuck that noise is so good

>>3054953
Tallinn, gorhol

Hello there

The shots look really good. I never actually tried disposables so hard to say if your're shitting or not. What camera? What film?

File: Photo05_2A.jpg (740KB, 1012x672px) Image search: [Google]

740KB, 1012x672px

>>3054990
>>3055035
I had two camera models, a "Smile 400" and a "Novocolor 400". Both of em contain the same Fujifilm.
They retail for like 6euros and the developing was another 6-8 euros depending on the quality.

>>3054968
Fuck i really love this one

File: Photo11_8A.jpg (964KB, 672x1011px) Image search: [Google]

964KB, 672x1011px

Pls reply

>>3055155
Did you just give it to some developing shop, or got your own lab and applied some processing?

are these photos ironic?

File: cc - Copy.jpg (1000KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

1000KB, 1200x800px

>>3055155
I've only used Kodak ones, but I guess it makes sense that the Fujis would be wildly superior.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2014:08:08 10:26:50
Exposure Time	0.3 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3054990
Not him, but you do know that skill beats gear everytime, right?

File: 98000010.jpg (826KB, 1004x666px) Image search: [Google]

826KB, 1004x666px

>>3055245
I went to a dedicated lab. They knew their shit, plus I post processed them myself.

>>3055296
Why ironic?

>>3055379
> I post processed them myself
i can tell....incredibly oversaturated. why bother shooting a film/disposable cameras if you're going to go overboard with the processing? (although why you shoot disposable cameras at all is a better question)

>>3055653
Because they are fun.

These are really fuckin' good! Can't believe they were shot with a disposable!

>>3054966
>>3054971
god damn these are good

>>3054968
>>3054970
>>3055155
not bad at all

>>3055653
stfu

Yep, you got a bunch of good shots.

Certainly don't get why you used disposable cameras though. A decent digital camera would have been better without the (apparently) decent scanning method you used.

>>3056713
you shoot with a disposable camera for the lo-fi aesthetic, a digital camera would just look boring and average

Pls share more