the disposable memory project

Found a camera? Tell us here!
Are you one of The 100? Visit our new project for 2012
developments

The curious case of Camera 395

January 2, 2012 by admin

We don’t have many rules at the project, we let people interpret the project pretty broadly, and as a result get a wide range of journeys and stories back from cameras. However, we have recently had a camera returned by the person who originally released it, ie. it never really got passed on.

In the interest in openness, I asked the community for their thoughts on whether this camera should be classed as ‘returned’ and therefore added to the project as a camera. The responses were pretty much split down the middle. Half of the people thought that it was still valid, and the images contained on the camera still merit sharing. Others thought that it shouldn’t really go towards the camera returned count.

Personally, I’m inclined to agree. I don’t want to overinflate the returned camera count by allowing cameras which were released and returned by the same individual, else we risk multiple cameras just staying with a single person, and effectively just sharing photographs taken.

Camera 395 was sent to a journalist as part of Kodak’s agreement to provide us with 50 cameras (25 went to the community by us, 25 were sent to journalists across Europe by Kodak). I know for sure that it was passed on to the journalist’s children, but in any case, it was immediately used up and returned to us.

So, to keep things simple, we’ve added the images to this post, which you can see below, but the camera itself will not be added to the project as a returned camera. You can still see the camera details (as we have many cameras which are only with a single person so far) on the Camera 395 page, but it has not been counted as returned.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, do email or tweet us if you think this is the best way of handling this rare occurrence, or completely disagree with our approach.

Older Posts: