That’s, Like, So 90s

I’m at the Ohio State football game, cheering on our team to victory. My friends and I tap the girl in front of us, wanting to commemorate our first white-out, and ask her to take our picture for us. We step back, smile, and as the flash flickers, someone snickers in our ears, “That disposable is so 90s.”

Now I know the world has crossed the threshold of the technological era, but nowhere did it say that my beloved plastic cameras have to be obsolete. Those of you who know me are aware that at almost all times I have a disposable at hand. They’re easy, reliable, and totally cool. Yes, high-tech Nikons and Canons are great, but there’s nothing like having vintage at your fingertips. So today, I thought we’d take a look at two pictures of the same subject, one of which I’ve used in this blog before. The first was taken by a digital camera, while the second came from a disposable. When put together, we can see the different stories told by each.

Beaver Stadium in the Digital Age

Welcome to Beaver Stadium, circa 2012. The crowd is roaring, the band has just left the field, and the game is ready to recommence. The sun shines in the glossy sky. What a perfect day for a college football game. The digital camera has captured a high quality, flawless scene of game day. The different tiers of the stadium are clearly defined and three-dimensional, and the different colors are bright and captivating. You can even make out the picture on the scoreboard of a player with a bright light shining in the top left corner. The digital camera works to create the illusion that you are in the stadium on that bright and beautiful afternoon.

Beaver Stadium Disposabled

The disposable camera is not so deceptive. Welcome to Beaver Stadium on that same day, minutes before the previous photograph was taken. There’s a damp shadow hanging from the clouds on the band, fans, and State College. The colors have lost their sheen, and, while the images on the scoreboard are still visible, they are blurred and insignificant. A languid hush has fallen on Happy Valley. Kodak has clearly not made high quality a priority; in fact, it is such poor quality that it almost has a vintage appearance. Perhaps, rather than attempt to recreate the memory, disposables focus more on evoking a memory.

The two cameras have distinctly different interpretations of the same moment in time. Whether you choose disposable or digital, one thing remains true: photography is a powerful medium. For me, I simply prefer low-quality pictures, which only further elevate the high-quality living that cameras capture.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to That’s, Like, So 90s

  1. Christina Reuille says:

    The digital image is almost too perfect. The disposable seems like a much better snapshot of the moment. I have a friend at home who shares your love of disposable cameras. She had about 6 of them with her at prom and took some of our favorite pictures. One of the things that she pointed out that makes a disposable camera’s picture so much better is that you only get one shot. With the digital age, we are constantly looking at the pictures and retaking them and deleting them – trying to capture the “perfect shot” when really one shot will be a more accurate picture of the events.

  2. Kathryn Dent says:

    I love to take pictures! I never really paid much attention to disposable cameras though. You have such an interesting perspective on them. The picture does make it look vintage-almost. I use the high-tech Nikon one’s but now I may just have to go out and buy a disposable for shits and gigs. Another great median for picture taking is surprisingly (or not so surprisingly) the iPhone. To be honest, I have done so of my best work on the iPhone. But back to your post… rock the disposable camera. It’s 90’s and awesome!

  3. Margaret Culver says:

    As usual, your posts always surprise and enlighten! I never would have thought about using a disposable camera over a higher powered Nikon. I have always thought it was a cumbersome practice to go and get the film developed. However I can understand and appreciate and the value and character you see in disposable cameras. I’m sure there are definitely practices that I cling to sentimental reasons even though more precise methods have been established.

  4. Julia Boitano says:

    Disposable cameras definitely create a vintage feel in the picture. This connects with how many people think disposable camera are vintage. The disposable and digital image portray to different personalities. I think it is interesting how you compared both of them through pictures. We can really see the difference between the two. I own a Canon digital camera and I love taking pictures. It is so funny because people turned to digital camera s because of the between quality they have than disposables. But now people are using their phones to take pictures and that is definitely a down grade in quality.

  5. Alyssa Palmer says:

    I’ve never really heard that side f it before. Of course there is more character in the older photos, because newer photos (especially on auto-adjust), attempt to get the clearest picture possible. I have actually taken a few photography classes, and I think the higher tech ones (If you have the time to sit and play with them), can really capture the essence of a scene. Buuuut there is nothing wrong with disposable and it’s kind of sad that people cant appreciate the use of it!

  6. Alexa Echevarria says:

    sometimes I agree that low quality gives pictures a certain character that can’t be achieved any other way. It almost encompasses the memory even more accurately than using highly saturated Instagram or a high quality digital camera. Some of these “high-tech” ways of taking pictures don’t really encompass the entire memory, they just try to make it look attractive. Depending on what you’re looking for, this may be appropriate, but sometimes it’s nice to have a picture with character 🙂

  7. Nikki Cheshire says:

    I always get frustrated with the way my digital camera compensates for light. All I really want is a camera that captures exactly what my eyes see, because usually I’m disappointed with the way it changes the focus. After all, I’m not trying to simply remember the objects I see, I want to capture the emotion with it. That’s something you can do with a low-quality (yet still charming) Kodak.
    I think it’s funny how people sneer at the vintage camera you own, but most likely use instagram in order to alter their high-resolution photos into appearing vintage. Interesting.

  8. Yuyuan Pan says:

    I have a Canon 500D camera. It has nice quality with various tasks. But I’m not professional. I bought it just because I thought having a digital camera would be very cool but now I barely take it with me because it is so HEAVY. This is why people love to use phones to take pictures, and actually Iphone has a nice camera. Although I have a galaxy S3…It is very nice but sucks at camera quality.

  9. Sarah Shulbank-Smith says:

    Wheb I said digital I meant disposable hahah sorry.

  10. Sarah Shulbank-Smith says:

    Awesome post. Many of the pictures from my Bat Mitzvah are from disposables. I feel like they’re charming! And it does give a different view of the scene. Never really thought to compare the two. I wonder when digital cameras will become totally obsolete…:(

  11. srd5247 says:

    The way I remember the Ohio State game is much more like the way the disposable camera remembers its. Dark and gloomy. The way the high tech camera portrays the game we would all be wearing shorts and flip flops but that wasn’t the case at all. I am not a believing in anything cheap cannot be good. I say if it gets the job done, its good enough.

Leave a Reply