Disposable camera shots from the early 2000s will become the next vaporwave aesthetic.
Discuss.
They already were like two or three years ago. Get with it.
>>2878933
No because drugstores charge 12$ usd for them and most photographers just use an olympus xa or some shit with film in it
I've known lomography enthusiasts that have used expired disposable cameras for years
The only trend in terms of photography i can see happening in vaporwave is mid-early 2000s digital compact photography which *gasp* people are already doing "ironically"
>>2878992
Those old shitty point and shoots give the worst pictures imaginable.
The only worse cameras are ones on flip phones.
Every smartphone these days takes far better pictures than those point and shoots. They have like a $0 value.
>>2878933
>will become the next vaporwave aesthetic.
>the next vaporwave aesthetic
>vaporwave aesthetic
>vaporwave
>aesthetic
wtf are you trying to say?
speak American
>>2879036
t. butthurt digipleb
>dat full frame sensor
>dat dynamic range
>dat ease of use, rugged durability
Like four years ago I went on a trip across Europe with a couple of friends and we took 8 or so disposables with us, broke one and lost one but just snapped away and didn't really care
When we got back we got them put on a CD for us and the pics obviously weren't great but there was some really cool ones and some good ones of us with friends we had met etc
Highly recommend
>>2879036
>Every smartphone these days takes far better pictures than those point and shoots. They have like a $0 value.
Yet most of those point and shoots don't hover around the 28mm fixed eqv.
A shot i took way back in 2003 with a disposable
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1920 Image Height 1347 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 600 dpi Vertical Resolution 600 dpi Image Created 2015:03:11 21:02:34 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 702
>>2879287
another
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1920 Image Height 1355 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 600 dpi Vertical Resolution 600 dpi Image Created 2015:03:13 16:57:34 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 706
>>2879287
So scratch, much retro, wow. It's actually a nice shot with all that aberration though. It would be profoundly boring without it.
>>2878933
People were doing that in the late 2000s and earlier. The next thing would probably be taking even noisier photos
New York 2005
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 15300 Image Height 21059 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 600 dpi Vertical Resolution 600 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2010:08:12 00:56:14 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1100 Image Height 777
>>2880510
Almost thought I saw that on flickr from the thumbnail when looking at olympus xa picture examples
good shit btw
people are pretty much using disposables when they go in for Lomography bullshit anyway.
People will more likely look back at old instagram photos and say "why did they keep on applying shitty filters to everything?"
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 600 dpi Vertical Resolution 600 dpi Image Created 2010:08:11 23:57:02 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1090 Image Height 777
>>2880517
beautiful
>>2880511
>cutting the top corner of the van off
do you even compose
>>2880537
do you even read posts
