We are currently living in the age of digital media, everything we do we can almost always tie in how technology plays a role in the activity. This includes how we take pictures. I don’t have anything close to a professional camera, but I do have an iPhone. This device is how I take nearly all of my pictures and videos. I’ve shot concerts and music festivals and taken pictures with friends when we’ve gone out. However, during these events, I’ve always wondered if I am missing out on truly living in the moment. Am I truly experiencing something if I am viewing it through a screen? These questions led me to the decision to use a disposable camera for my recent trip to Salem. 

    About a week before the trip I purchased my first disposable camera at my local Walgreens, spending nearly thirty dollars on it (my mom said they used to be $1.50 when she was in college). The camera itself seemed to be made of plastic and the viewfinder is an “inverted Galilean-type plastic lens finder” (Target, n.d.). The camera is 2.5 inches (H) x 5.9 Inches x 1.4 Inches (D) and weighs about .25lbs. The camera brand and make is a Fujifilm Quicksnap, which was Fuji’s first disposable camera that had model features that allowed for usage in the day and night due to the built-in flash. (Wiki, n.d). Fuji was one of the first brands to ever create a disposable camera making its debut in 1986 (Wiki, n.d.).  These cameras grew especially popular in the 90s and early 2000s but have since died down as new digital technology has emerged. 

    I had never used this type of camera before so there were definitely a few hiccups along the way. The first was I didn’t know how to actually use it. I had thrown out the box the morning before we left for the trip and little to my knowledge the box had the directions on it. After about five minutes of my boyfriend and I standing in massive crowds and trying to figure out how to get it to work we eventually gave up and looked up the directions. First you had to scroll the film wheel to the right, then you line up the shot by looking into a tiny viewfield, and lastly you hold the button at the top of the camera until you hear the click (Bear and McClure, 2021). Once I learned how to actually use it, another issue we ran into was distance. With digital cameras or cell phone cameras there are options like zoom and refocusing the lens but with the disposable camera this wasn’t an option. Every image I took I could only be a maximum of ten feet away from. While this wasn’t a deal breaker or really that inconvenient it was just something that really stuck out to me. The last real “issue” or difference I noticed was that I couldn’t see what the actual pictures looked like. With a digital camera you are able to look back and see if you need to take another picture but with the disposable camera you don’t get that option. I noticed I was just taking a bunch of pictures of the same thing hoping that at least one of them would turn out good. I still don’t know if any of the images came out good since it takes three weeks for the photos to be developed. 

All this being said, I enjoyed the experience much more than I anticipated. The disposable camera was chunky so taking it in and out of my purse was a bit of a hassle, especially in the Salem crowds. This eventually led to me taking less pictures than I thought I would, and only using it to capture really important or truly beautiful images. With iPhones specifically you can take 100+ different photos and not feel any real connection with the images but with the disposable camera every picture felt like a moment captured in time. That’s another thing I noticed, I felt more connected to the world around me when using the disposable camera. I can’t explain the feeling, but there is something to pulling out this chunky box and having the person you’re with pose for you or having to stop in the middle of the street to make sure a picture is in focus. It makes you laugh and the moment just feels more real.

When looking back at this experience I can definitely say that I will be using a disposable camera again or maybe even look at investing in a film or polaroid camera in the future. I don’t have anything against iPhone cameras or typical digital cameras, I think they’re both really great tools and honestly phone cameras are just really convenient, but there is something to be said about using a disposable one. As I mentioned before there was a feeling of really living in the moment when using it. Taking the picture made just as good of a memory as what I was trying to capture. I was really able to connect and slow down when using the camera as well. Another thing I noticed was taking the picture felt like creating a souvenir rather than just a photo I could look back on. There was more depth and more of a story connected to the image than you typically would get.

I would never have thought that an object like a camera could create a feeling of liveiness yet when comparing both disposable and iPhone the disposable would win over and over again. The object itself created memories and I think that is my biggest take away from this. Before this experiment I couldn’t really place what Marie Condo meant by only having items that give you joy, but now I can say without a doubt that the disposable camera I used is one of them. 

References 

Bear, Crystal, and Eric McClure. “How to Use a Fujifilm Disposable Camera.” WikiHow, WikiHow, 9 Aug. 2021, http://www.wikihow.com/Use-a-Fujifilm-Disposable-Camera#Taking-Photos.

“Fujifilm Quicksnap 135 Flash 400-27exp Camera.” Target, http://www.target.com/p/fujifilm-quicksnap-135-flash-400-27exp-camera/-/A-79898667?ref=tgt_adv_XS000000&AFID=google_pla_df&fndsrc=tmnv&DFA=71700000088114232&CPNG=PLA_DVM%2Ba064R000011uOSaQAM-Fujifilm_HolidayFY21_NovDec_Solo&adgroup=PLA_Fujifilm&LID=700000001393753pgs&network=g&device=c&location=9004843&gclid=Cj0KCQiA4b2MBhD2ARIsAIrcB-Tm3xZOJivUVnK0bCHFImgnC3lEoStULFmfXa4y3ye5ThR_DLAQcE4aAjhHEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds.

“Fujifilm QuickSnap.” Camera, camera-wiki.org/wiki/Fujifilm_QuickSnap.

When considering this project, I thought about the form of the typewriter, a mechanical device that used the physical power of one’s hand to press down and activate a mechanism that causes a pin with an engraved letter to stamp down on a piece of paper. The mechanical action of a typewriter versus the light touch of a computer’s keyboard reminded me greatly of the mechanical action of the hammer of a piano. I am a piano player, but I have long since abandoned the frame of wood and wire, for one of plastic and metal. For me, it was a matter of convenience, it is difficult to lug around a 600 pound upright piano after all. When I was first taught piano, it was on an old, rickety upright that we basically got for free, it was later replaced by a much nicer upright “Kawai” brand piano. These uprights were quite tedious, and fairly difficult to maintain, and needed to be tuned every year (though we certainly went a few years without tuning them up). When I was preparing to move in for college, one of the things I decided I absolutely needed was a keyboard. We went to a lot of stores trying to find one that suited my tastes, and eventually, I decided on a Roland brand FP-30. I found this keyboard to be excellent in both feel and sound; the sign of a good keyboard is in the weight. A real piano has a lot of “heft” behind the keys, as your finger muscles need to do some strenuous work moving the complex components of the hammer mechanism or the “action”. A good keyboard should have weighted keys to replicate this effect, and I made sure to find one that met this requirement. 

https://kawaius.com/technology/piano-action/ (action for a grand piano)

It has been a long time since I actually sat down and played an analog or acoustic piano; I tried to use some of the ones in college hall, but they are all reserved for music students. It was then that I remembered that there was a medium grand in the Student Union Building. So I grabbed my things and I went over to try it out. The creak of the wooden stool is an unmistakable sound, and the weathered machine in front of me looked like it had been played thousands of times. When I placed my hand on top of a key and let the weight of my appendage simply push down on the key, I found that the key did not depress at all. When playing on my keyboard, there are sensitivity options, and I typically set it to the second-highest level of touch, this is due to a condition in my hands that causes weakness and pain, so the lighter touch is well appreciated, and is actually one of the main reasons I switched to a keyboard. On this grand piano, however, I felt no movement from my light touch. Curious about this, I pressed a little harder, and it was only then I felt the mechanism of the key budge. The sound of an acoustic piano comes from the physical strike of a soft felt hammer on a wound string, and as such, a light press of the key simply caused the hammer to touch the string with barely any sound. I then decided to up the strength of my presses, and I attacked the key with a far more powerful press. This is what finally gave me my first real sound. I quickly moved into playing a few short excerpts of pieces, both soft and strong, and what I found was incredible difficulty in depressing the keys consistently. It was clear that this piano was very, very, well-used, to put it nicely. The keys were very “sticky” and clunky, and the pedals of the piano were rickety and loose. Every key seemed to require a different level of pressure to produce a consistent volume, I could press down on middle C with the same force as the adjacent note and it would yield a sound of different volume. When playing some faster pieces, the keys often got caught and would either not press down, or press down for too long, and doing any runs proved very difficult. The physical keys themselves were very smooth and slippery, making my fingers slip off on occasion. I am unsure of the actual make of this piano, but I wonder if the keys are ivory. Ivory keys were discontinued around the 70s, with acrylics and polymers taking their place; I have never compared the two types directly so I am unsure of the actual feel of these different materials. The one thing I was surprised about was the tuning of the piano. I had expected for this machine to be completely out of tune, but surprisingly it seemed as though the tone was not off by much; I do wonder if the college tunes the instrument regularly. Tuning is a non-issue on a keyboard, in fact, you can manipulate it freely and even shift the “key” of the whole board on a whim, leading to some interesting effects. 

Overall the “feel” of the piano was quite strange, and something I had not felt in a long time. I have had few opportunities to play expensive, full grand pianos, and this experience makes me want to try one out freely, rather than being limited to something like a recital. This experience made me realize some of the finer aspects of convenience my digital keyboard gives me: it never goes out of tune, the touch can be adjusted to my liking, the sound is always crisp and clear, I can change the sound to my liking, and it is far more convenient and easy to transport. That being said I am sure the analog, acoustic piano is not going to go out of style any time soon. 

This section of the Estate Inventory of Cornelius DuBois mostly lists tools, utensils, and furniture, along with their prices. Within the inventory, utensils made from five different types of metal are recorded. The most frequent of these materials are pewter, appearing 6 times and tin, appearing 7 times. That is in contrast to brass, only appearing twice, and silver which is only listed once. Iron is in the middle, referenced 4 times, not including the tools that can be inferred are also made of iron. Over metal, plates and pitchers are often recorded in this inventory as being made from different types of decorated earthenware, which would be cheaper to produce than any of the metal plates.

Pewter itself is a tin-based alloy, made of mostly tin mixed with a small percent of another metal. When pewter was first being produced in ancient Rome, it would consist of about 70% tin and 30% lead (Britannica). Over time, the amount of lead in the pewter would lessen, though modern pewter tends to contain 90% tin with the other 10% being made of copper, antimony, and/or silver (Britannica). Early pewter’s high lead content allowed it to be made cheaply, however it also made using these utensils very dangerous. Due to lead being a poisonous material, the daily use of pewter utensils and drinking vessels led to many people dying from pewter poisoning (Way). The higher the amount of lead in pewter, the more dangerous it is, this meant that lower income individuals that could only afford high lead pewter were more exposed to lead poisoning. This tended to prove specifically fatal to sailors during the early development of pewter (Way). 

Despite this danger, pewter was initially viewed as a very desirable material to have in your home. In modern times, knowing the danger of lead we would avoid these utensils. However in early America this was very different, as stated by the collector Agatha Cowan, “From the time of first settlement through the Revolutionary War, all Americans aspired to eat and drink from pewter. Every American who could afford it used pewter daily. For the common man the appeal of pewter continued into the I870’s…” (Cowan 297). This shows that despite not reaching the same pristine image of silver, pewter was still a hot commodity for the emerging middle class of America in the 18th and 19th centuries.

When looking at the inventory one can see that a collection of 14 silver teaspoons and tongs recorded on page 10 are worth $12. Calculating inflation, this would be equivalent to spending roughly $269 today (Webster). While there is no direct set of 14 pewter spoons listed, for comparison, we may look towards the collection of 3 pewter plates and 6 pewter spoons on the inventory page 9. This set is valued at 50 cents, after calculating inflation, using the same system as we did with the silver spoons, this value equates to roughly $11 today (Webster). This depicts the practicality of buying pewter over silver from a purely financial point of view, which is why it was so desirable as a material for utensils and dinnerware. The fault of pewter came with both its danger when containing high volumes of lead, but also with its degradation. Pewter may replicate the shine of silver at first, but this is hard to maintain, as over time it will become dark and dull. 

This can be seen when comparing antique silver spoons and antique pewter spoons. While both metals require a certain amount of maintenance and polishing, there is a notable difference in the quality of these utensils. The silver set of spoons from 1810, when maintained, are able to achieve a mirror-like shine and a smooth texture. When viewed beside a set of 18th century pewter spoons, one can see the ways that pewter was used to mimic silver, without reaching that level of brilliance. There is a dullness to the spoons, as this pewter’s surface has darkened and degraded with age. There is also visible damage to the pewter spoons, not visible on the silver spoons. This may be due to the pewter being more of a daily use object rather than the more special or valuable silver spoons. This also could be because of the softs of the metals in pewter as opposed to silver, depicting another one of pewter’s downfalls. Pewter’s tendency to become damaged would go on to be a part of its initial production. The pewter industry in American relied heavily on the metal from worn-out pewter objects for its raw material (Cowan 297). Therefore, recycling of material was an important step in production, making early pewter pieces a rare find in today’s collecting world due to the melting down of these objects.

Pewter, when containing a large amount of lead, can also be notably heavy when compared to other mixtures of the metal (Way). Thus, adding on to its danger and its darkening, pewter is rather clunky to use as opposed to silver. However, the fact that pewter appears far more often on this inventory than silver shows that this household preferred the more affordable material despite its drawbacks. This can be shocking due to the DuBois family’s known wealth. Though pewter might have been seen as a close enough material to silver for utensils used everyday, rather than particularly special silvery utensils which may be used in the presence of guests.

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “pewter”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 6 Sep.2019, https://www.britannica.com/technology/pewter. Accessed 21 November2021.

Cowan, Agatha. The Art Bulletin, vol. 57, no. 2, [Taylor & Francis, Ltd., College Art Association], 1975, pp. 296–97, https://doi.org/10.2307/3049390.

Way, George. “Early Pewter Was Beautiful, but Dangerous.” Silive, 18 Mar. 2010,https://www.silive.com/homegarden/antiques/2010/03/early_pewter_was_beautiful_but.html.

Webster, Ian. “$12 In 1810 → 2021 | Inflation Calculator”. Officialdata.Org, 2021,https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1810?amount=12.

Webster, Ian. “$0.50 In 1810 → 2021 | Inflation Calculator”. Officialdata.Org, 2021,https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1810?amount=0.50.

“Set 4 Antique Dundee Silver Fiddle Teaspoons, Dated Circa 1810 Alexander Cameron For Sale At 1Stdibs”. 1Stdibs.Com, 2021,https://www.1stdibs.com/furniture/dining-entertaining/sterling-silver/set-4-antiqu-dunde-silver-fiddle-teaspoons-dated-circa-1810-alexander-cameron/id-f_1535582/.

“Three Large 18Th Century Pewter Soup Spoons, Handcrafted For Sale At 1Stdibs”.1Stdibs.Co.Uk,2021,https://www.1stdibs.co.uk/furniture/dining-entertaining/tablware/three-large-18th-century-pewter-soup-spoons-handcrafted/id-f_9967923/.