Which is better digital,regular,or disposible cameras?

Go with the digital. It may be more expensive, but you can keep all your pictures on the memory card and upload it onto your computer and print only the pictures you wish to print. You can also delete pictures on the spot to save room, zoom and set contrast, and do nighttime flash settings. Disposible cameras are cheaper, but kind of useless. A regular camera is okay, but you might waste film accidently taking pictures. Digital is the best, and a good brand would be sony and their cybershot series. You can have the best, and most expensive camera made, but if you don't know how to use it, and look for the best angles, it won't be worth a dime. If you take a lot of pictures, digital, no contest. You can delete pictures you don't want, it's easier to not develop unwanted pictures, you don't have to buy film. Oh yeah, once you realize this, you'll be taking a lot more pictures than you ever did with film, just because you CAN.

But to get similar quality to a decent film camera, you're going to need to spend around 150 dollars or more. Preferably around 250 or more.

Disposeable cameras are for when you need a camera but like, left yours at home or something. They aren't something you should rely on if you like taking pictures.

For professional photographers, or artistic photography, film still has some applications. But for the casual photographer, digital all the way.

One thing though, a lot of digital cameras will blur even easier than film. If you can afford it you want one with Optical Image Stabilization. Not Digital, Optical. Digital Image Stabilization pretty much does not work. Panasonic's OIS is okay, Canon's is better. Sony's is worthless. 6 months ago those were the only games in town on the low-end. Now, there might be more.