Just for fun! Disposable film vs phone for p&s

The last P&S film camera I owned cost me £130 to develop all the film when I got home from my holiday. I loved the colours and direct small flash, red eye and all. What I didn't like is that the wrist strap had made it into quite a few photos. Easily reviewed and fixed in this day and age.

That said, I bought myself 100 roles of agfa 200- iso (24-exposure) film for £100 a couple of years ago and a cheap richoh FF9 point and shoot camera that I take to events. It's a a decent lens 35mm F3.5. I just like the look of pictures from it and the wait and see aspect.

Phone photos IMHO are way better than old mediocre film camera photos.

It's like SD vs HD video. You didn't realize how bad it used to be until you got used to the newer technology.

PhotoFactor said:

Phone photos IMHO are way better than old mediocre film camera photos.

It's like SD vs HD video. You didn't realize how bad it used to be until you got used to the newer technology.

Click to expand...

We watched a TV documentary last night about white house photographers covering past presidents. We saw a lot of great/intimate still film work covering over a century, but were also surprised at how photography has evolved, technically. Do we really appreciate what over a century of technological advances has given us? I'm not sure, by the way hairs are often split these days in regard to gear, raw technique, etc.

Papa48 said:

PhotoFactor said:

Phone photos IMHO are way better than old mediocre film camera photos.

It's like SD vs HD video. You didn't realize how bad it used to be until you got used to the newer technology.

Click to expand...

We watched a TV documentary last night about white house photographers covering past presidents. We saw a lot of great/intimate still film work covering over a century, but were also surprised at how photography has evolved, technically. Do we really appreciate what over a century of technological advances has given us? I'm not sure, by the way hairs are often split these days in regard to gear, raw technique, etc.

Click to expand...

In Denmark we say "More wants more".

I remember how Ektachrome Professional looked when pushed to ASA 3200. Blacks were grey, there were incredible large grain and colours tilted. On modern FF cameras, ISO 3200 is nothing out of the ordinary, and even smaller formats will manage in a pinch.

Klaus dk said:

Papa48 said:

PhotoFactor said:

Phone photos IMHO are way better than old mediocre film camera photos.

It's like SD vs HD video. You didn't realize how bad it used to be until you got used to the newer technology.

Click to expand...

We watched a TV documentary last night about white house photographers covering past presidents. We saw a lot of great/intimate still film work covering over a century, but were also surprised at how photography has evolved, technically. Do we really appreciate what over a century of technological advances has given us? I'm not sure, by the way hairs are often split these days in regard to gear, raw technique, etc.

Click to expand...

In Denmark we say "More wants more".

I remember how Ektachrome Professional looked when pushed to ASA 3200. Blacks were grey, there were incredible large grain and colours tilted. On modern FF cameras, ISO 3200 is nothing out of the ordinary, and even smaller formats will manage in a pinch.

Click to expand...

Well said!

Papa48 said:

Do we really appreciate what over a century of technological advances has given us? I'm not sure, by the way hairs are often split these days in regard to gear, raw technique, etc.

Click to expand...

Indeed. The irony is that nowadays, there's a lot of discussions (ao on DPR), sometimes bordering on hairsplitting, regarding the technical merits of images. But the most important factor by far for "IQ" (content) is strangely not mentioned very often