[pmelendez]

Wow, A casual reader might get confused with these comments and think that HN means Haters News.

Here we have a product that a curious person (like myself) interested in learning how photography used to work would buy in a heartbeat, and still the top three comments (as I write) are " Who is this for?", "This is so goddam stupid." and "That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen".

If these guys are doing this is because they would buy it. It doesn't matter if the size of their potential market is ridiculously small, it is still a market and they want to test it. There is no need to verbally destroy somebody else ideas.

Sometimes we should keep in mind that phrase : "If you don't have any positive thing to say, don't say anything"

[lttlrck]

Right! If nothing else this is a couple of hours of fun mucking around with optics and chemicals. What's not to like? This is the kind of stuff I would have loved to try when I was a kid. Even now, if I had the ingredients lying around I'd probably give it a shot, who cares if the results are rubbish?

[yardie]

This teaches you nothing about how photography used to work (it works the same damn way). What it is is how things sorta worked before negative scanners and photoshop.

The iPhone has a 8MP sensor, the screen is 0.6MP why would you intentionally handicap yourself like this? So you use it to develop the results and realize the picture looks like shit. So why bother.

[dsimms]

wonkblog covered this recently: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/27/r...