File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Taken with a Canon Rebel (the first generation film version from about 15 years ago) and a super-cheap phoenix 400mm lens.
>> Anonymous
wow thats a big enough photo to look great on a 640x480 monitor with 3 bit color
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>64964
I think the simplicity really works well in this case.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
>>64964
The original was probably higher res, the guy resized out of courtesy.

Also, I think this was supposed to go in that "good pictures with crappy cameras" thread.
>> Anonymous
>>64966

Yeah, it was supposed to be for that pics with crappy cameras thread. I tried to delete it, but it doesn't seem to work.

Anyway, about the size, I just pulled the pics off my website since the originals are archived on CDs somewhere and I didn't feel like looking through the boxes to find them just for a thread about crappy cameras.
>> notaphotograph
>>64971
haah yeah, dont bother.
too bad they were scanned with such a low res.
I like some you posted, not this one, and yeah some are really cheap, but I wouldn't buy those cam since to masterize a cheap film camera must be a hard job, and it will ruin me with film.
I really like film pictures, but who now would start directly using film, digital helps a lot.
>> Anonymous
>>64982

Digital is nice, but hardly necessary. I shoot mostly digital now, but learned with film and don't feel like it held me back at all. Besides, learning a cheap film camera is in my opinion easier than learning a high-end digital camera.

If you can afford a high-end digital camera, by all means go for it. But don't think for a second that you can't learn with a cheap digital or even a 30 year old film SLR.
>> Anonymous
>>64991
I wouldn't go for a high end or slr either :)
learn for cheap, that's the spirit, and have fun.
so film are nice, but will ruin me since I will fail many many shots , so I will with a digital, but that wont cost me precious films.