The disposable camera, in the old days are actually reused and recycled by manufacturers. There is a video on TH-cam which I no longer could find shows how Fujifilm factory reuses them. Fujifilm would go to developers to collect crates of empty cameras and bring it back to the factory. The camera is design modularity so the case, internal structure, battery, flash, circuit board, lens all comes off. The flash, circuit board and lens are tested to see if they are fit for reuse. After the test lens are washed, then the flash, board and lens are fitted with new structure, battery, case, film, then wrapped again with the labels and then packaged to be sold again. The most amazing part is that this process is all *fully automatic* on assembly lines. Nowadays the volume just doesn’t meet the cost to transport and maintain factories to reuse the cameras.
You are legit my favorite film TH-camr. I love how you combine both really important social commentary (like your misogyny in photography video) with super practical testing & stuff! Killer as always!
The datasheets for UltraMax 800 (lomo 800, funsaver, aurora 800) and Portra 800 are the same. Assuming those datasheets are correct, the best speculation is that Portra 800 is higher quality in terms of dyes, halide size and distribution, manufacturing processes, and post manufacturing quality control. Going off this video, a thicker film base is now one discernable difference. Which actually brings up an important question: thicker film base or layers, yet the same setting scans produce the same results as Lomo 800.. hmm) I can't speak on the funsaver, but I'm guessing it was almost a dud. Very good video. The community is slowing unraveling the mysteries of the almighty Big K.
ive been doing 35mm pano shots on my fuji gw690 for years and what helped me save a few frames was cutting a paper leader with the height of the film and the width from the film canister to the other canister + the few "blind shots" you usually take when setting up the camera after a new inserting a new film. I tape the paper leader to the actual film leader of the film and the other end on the little cut end of the receing canister.
Okay that’s a bit weird. I’ve shot some fresh FunSaver film in my Leica and did exposure tests and it definitely came out more saturated and contrasty than Portra 800 and the grain was also noticeably larger. But the biggest difference was the over latitude and especially underexposure latitude. I’ve shot a lot of Portra 800 and the FunSave film definitely can’t keep up with Portra 800 in more challenging scenes. Also looking at the markings for the FunSaver film, it says Kodak GT 800. Which means it’s Ultramax 800. Looking at the curves in the Ultramax 800 spec sheet they’re identical to Portra 800. But Kodak isn’t always the most precise with their spec sheets. My guess is that it’s similar to how Gold 100 and 200 had the same curves. The target was the same but how they got there not. And like I said, the GT 800 was not on the same level in terms of dynamic range, grain, underexposure. And from everything I’ve seen Lomo 800 is the same as GT 800. Now what did happen is that Kodak switch from triacetate to their polyester ESTAR base for some of their films and the first to do so were Portra 800 and Color Plus. Which makes it even weirder that you said the Portra 800 was thicker and curled less because I can guarantee you, current Portra 800 is ESTAR and you can feel it. I also wanna note that I don’t know how shooting with a medium format back effects the scanning results without the scanners or conversion software being able to use the orange mask for a base balance. If you really wanna be thorough in a comparison, real world examples are super important! But using a color chart is really the way to go. This way you can scan them in a controlled way and get the RGB values for each layer precisely. But all that don’t matter! What I wanna know is what Aurora 800 is now?! Is it maybe the new Kodak movie film that’s supposed to be coming, based on a professional stills film? Did they take Portra 800, turned that into a movie film and sold that to Flick Film to sell for stills? I needs to know!!1
What was the methodology for scanning? The best method would've been digitizing with a digital camera on manual mode to ensure 100% identical conditions and then copy and paste inversion settings (be it in Lightroom or Photoshop) to, again, ensure identical treatment to each of photo. If they were inverted individually it's hard to jugde even if everything was set to auto. For example leaving everything at 0 on NLP doesn't mean the same thing every time, NLP does different things under the hood every time you hit convert based on the individual scan you have. Do you know any more details about that? Also, blink twice if a certain film named after a natural phenomenon is the same thing as a certain product with a higher price that everybody loves 😉😉
I just found your channel, and I am having a blast binging through your film videos. What a gem! It's a shame that the community is so small, I feel like you'd have hundreds of thousands of subscribers if it was for a different niche with this production quality and humor. Although then i probably wouldn't write this comment. I hope you keep doing what you do! :)
My family didn't have much money when I was a kid, so I bought disposable cameras and always reloaded them (until they wore out) with new film to save money. I'm glad someone else has discovered the joy of reloading disposable cameras!
Learned something today. At 4:47 the sign says 周永職燕梳. I've heard people speak the term 燕梳 before but never knew how it was written or what it meant. Turns out it actually meant "insurance", and is used by overseas Cantonese. I really like the Lomo 800 too!
I can't speak to Kodak disposable cameras, but I've taken apart a few disposable Fujifilm cameras, and you absolutely do have to damage them to open them up. Just getting to the roll is not too destructive, but you still have to bend back a plastic seam that will stay open unless you press it back down, and it's clear that it won't survive being bent back and forth too many times before it breaks. Reloading it is another matter entirely. You can take it apart without doing too much more damage, though you will have to bend back a couple more seams and destroy a plastic weld on the back. The issue is trying to get all the pieces back together in a dark room/bag where you can't see anything, on top of resealing any light leaks caused by the damage done during disassembly. It definitely can be done, but it's not nearly worth the effort when you can spend a little bit more on a camera that's designed to be reloaded in the field.
Of course “everything is Kodak these days”. Or almost, if one discounts the Japan-only Fuji stocks and Orwo. But I really do not know of any current 800 colour negative stock that is _not_ technically Kodak. 🤔 But very apparently there are differences in quality, and probably cost, which seem to make up for the overhead of producing different configurations 🤷🏻♀️. @@YvonneHansonPhotography
I worked in camera shops when disposabule cameras first came out. It took us about five mins to figure out how to remove the film safely and without damage and then reload it with new film so you could have any film you wanted in it. After that we started daisy chaining the flash capacitors together and playing rather dubious games of dare. It was a simpler time and you had to make your wn entertainment! I should add don't try this at home kids.
Thanks for doing this comparison! Definitely not cheap or easy lol. But it was super interesting getting to see how the three Kodak films compare... maybe most interesting to me was the funsaver, as I always put down the 'quality' and 'aesthetic' differences to the plastic lens, but the film itself clearly has a lot to do with that. And just good to know the cheaper Lomo is still an awesome alternative to Portra
one tip, if you shudder at losing the 35 mm format frames, shoot a Hasselblad Xpan, or a Bronica ETR ( has a 135 back!) so loading is catered for 35 mm film, so you don't waste any, plus with the bronica, it has film mags like the hasselblad, so you can swap over mid roll.
Great experiment and lovely results. I honestly don't lean towards 800-speed colour films, although Aurora does interest me. As for geeking out about cameras, it is so true! I have folk talk to me more when I'm out with my Rolleiflex or an Ikonta folder.
@@LearnFilmPhotography depends on my mood! Last Friday had a lovely chat with an older couple, the gentleman and I had some shared family history, mostly due to our shared Dutch heritage. If I wanted to stay focused, I put in headphones.
What a fun experiment, and I was not expecting those results! I'm also surprised to learn that disposable cameras aren't disposable at all, I'm now miffed at the thought of all of those cameras just being tossed after a single use.
If i recall the main thing that is 'single use' in these disposable cameras is the flash, there is no proper charging circuit inside so once the charge is used up (or the bulb goes, they aren't designed for long life) theres no easy replacement. If you ignore or dont use the flash, then yes, it's just a cheap plastic cased camera as normal.
Late to comment, but great photos as always! I am a big fan of Lomo 800 so glad to see it holds up well against the industry standard Portra. As others have said, you can stick the paper backing from 120 onto the roll of 35 to save yourself the horror of wasting so much film haha (I think shooting in the 220 back supposedly gets you most of the roll?). I think a medium format camera would go well with your kind of studio work. Doesn't have to be a pricey hassy, maybe something like a solid 6x4.5 SLR (Mamiya, Pentax, Bronica etc) would work great.
The funsaver shots are noticeably less sharp than the rest, but I didn't hear you mention it. Is the grain just coarser leading to less sharpness in the color dyes, or maybe there was some focusing issue when scanning (due to the thinner base)? There's also a light leak in the picture at 10:43 - was that the camera's fault? Maybe it was not well pressed against the backplate? I thought lomo 800 was the same thing as what's in the disposable cameras (gold 800 / ultramax 800, whatever you want to call it), but these comparison pics have the funsaver standing out as being much more different to lomo than lomo to portra. So I have even more questions now than before the video!
I think a few of the funsavers we might have missed focus, there were a few less-than-perfect test shots. I didn't notice the overall trend that they were less sharp, but I can see that interpretation for sure! Good eye on the light leak! Though that image was taken through a window, so it may be a refraction of a green traffic light on the nearby corner- not sure.
Since these are 35mm films in a 120 back, it's entirely possible that the pressure plate is slightly off, or one of the films wasn't spooled perfectly tight. You can blame me for that! Though looking at them on my computer now, there were a few frames where the funsaver was actually tack sharp. So I truly doubt that's a factor of the way the film is made, because, especially for that one - why would Kodak make their own unique formula for a film that they only sell in disposable cameras? That would be a ridiculously expensive endeavor for a factory to do for a product that sells the film in much lower quantities. As for the light leak, that one frame with the motorcycle is actually the only place it showed up on the entire roll. It could have been from one of the rented film backs - I'm not too certain, but I don't think that subtracts from the test.
YA I WAS FLOORED. I think there's a possibility that some are returned to the manufacturers by commercial labs, but that might just be wishful thinking 😭
I'm super confused by the data sheet thing ... though I'm glad you can see the difference between the Lomo/Kodak/Aurora 800 and Portra 800. I generally consider Portra 800 to be a true 400 ISO film, and I tend to like it more at that rating. As far as the effect the base has: I THINK Lomo 100 and Gold 200 are the same. The interesting part here (unless they've had to change stocks) is that Lomo 100 has a much thicker base than Gold 200 120 does. I've shot Lomo 100 and Gold 120 together at the same time once, and the colors seemed indistinguishable. However, the heaviness of the base might be a difference maker between the two ... Conspiracies abound!
There's a lot to consider here! I kinda want to do a 400 iso comparison at some point, and get the lomo 400 and ultramax in there as well...maybe throw portra 800 in as well??
I mean effective film speed is really affected by scanning too. But Portra 800 is a true 800 speed film, if not faster in a Frontier workflow. You can shoot it at 1600 with very little loss in image quality. And it displays the typical Kodak overexposure characteristics when rated at 400. That being said in a Frontier workflow it just behaves amazingly at 640 ISO. Although most color neg films really shine at 1/3rd over when scanned on a Frontier.
Not surprised you were upset at losing all that film with the Hasselblad! You should have gone Bronica. The 135N back with either ETRS or SQ system would have given 36 frames. Alternatively, the excellent 135W gives 24 full panoramic shots!
I really love these deep dive videos, thankies Yvonne. 💜 Also interesting results, I guess I’ll have to put Lomo Color Negative on my shopping list. Re: scanning I found getting an old Tamron SP 90 AF for F mount and putting it on my Zf was the way to go for me. Cheap and way, way faster than any flatbed and very good results, so I won‘t order analog prints from the lab anymore. (I can send you the link to a roll of NC500 I recently shot and digitised, I have decided I adore that film by the way. Side note, have you made a Patreon yet? 😬 Buy me a coffee does not work that well for me.)
I need to invest in a scanner set up pretty soon! I'm at the "overhwelmed with options" stage, but I should really just pick one and make it work. Will check your rec! No patreon yet, but getting one started is on my 2024 goals list, so I will have one by the end of the year!! Thank you for your interest ;D
I would have thought that the emulsions are (somewhat) different, since it is not that much of a hassle to change formulations between coating runs. The work involved for setup is always the same. So maybe there are different numbers of color layers, the base material can be different, and maybe the formulations are different due to customer preference - Lomography might've told Kodak to give it more punch, so Kodak might've used something out of their cookbooks that would fit. But why this Funsaver 800 is so much worse than the other two - I have no idea (unless it *has* less layers to save costs and discourage people to just buy the disposable cameras and take the film off for re-use in better cameras ;-)).
I think it's complicated to DEVELOP an emulsion, but not necessarily to just keep making it. If it was worthwhile back in the day, they could keep going due to momentum. Doesn't have any bearing on it being true or not, just that it doesn't seem "far fetched" to me up front.
I have heard once that a disposable camera used to be called recyclable cameras, and I saw a video of a whole disassembly line that could take apart these cameras component by component without breaking any of it. This in order to completely reuse them in the future. Unfortunately I can't find the video anymore.
I've worked in both camera shops and photo labs between 2005 until 2015 and I don't recall anyone calling them recyclable cameras. That said, we would ship hundreds of disposables back to both Fuji and Kodak each month for them to recycle and reuse.
I always kind of assumed that “disposable cameras” would find their way back to the manufacturers who would then refurbish and reload them and sell as new again. They seem like too much of a resource to just throw away
I always thought fun saver film was a version of Gold. Mainly because I remember it being labeled Gold back in the day and package coloring screams gold as well
If you really want to know the (possible) differences in color film, you should print them manually on RA-4 paper. If scanned, the systems will always interpret the picture automatically in many ways. There is no such thing as unedited scan.
After scanning rollls myself and comparing to how the same rolls were scanned by a lab, I can't take the comparison offered here seriously. There are huge differences in how labs deliver scans, and huge differences in how you do scans. The way the sausage is made is not pretty, and it turns out most of the film 'look' is how you do it in post after scanning. Rarely does the raw unedited tiff scan look good, and most labs have a preset when they send to customers, otherwise most customers would be angry at the flat scans they'll be getting.
It’s great that the Lomo 800 is basically on par with Portra 800! Meanwhile, the Funsaver film looks like a bad batch of Portra that would have otherwise been thrown out. Guess when a Portra film doesn’t pass QA, it goes into a disposable camera … The Fuji is weird; in a few shots I actually like it the most, but in several it looked the worst to me. Feels a bit inconsistent?
I've been saying it for decades but because I'm a no one on the internet, no one pays me any attention.... Having worked a several camera shops for many years the one thing I learned from the both Kodak and Fuji reps was that "pro" film is nothing more than aged "consumer" film. And since 2007, I have only purchased so called cheap film and let it expire in the fridge. To this day, I personally, have not seen a huge difference between a Portra and an UltraMax and have never had the need to spend extra money on pro film for my wedding clients.
@@barlosjimbo5200 Whatever I find at my local Walmart really. Right now I have Fuji C200, the 'new' Fuji 200, Fuji Xtra 400 and the 'new' Fuji 400 and UltraMax 400. I don't get too hung up on which brand or stock TBH. Because my lab tech does the heavy lifting of color matching. Honestly, I feel ALOT of film photographers overcomplicate this to the max. Just buy what you can afford, age it, expose it to what you think is right, have a good lab tech you trust with your life and collect your pay check at the end of the day.
That is not a test by comparing in using different cameras, Ok,in using favorite model as you mention that is not a real test OK, a real test is adding a Macbeth Color Checker, or a Kodak Color & B/W Step wedge to compare the color profiles, and the Exposure Latitude of all the 800 film that is being mention. Also when using different lenses in which it is shown on this video will Give You A Different Look, Japan, and German Optics will give you a Different Look. A Disposable Camera only has One Shutter Speed, and one F/Stop, in which the film that are inside these cameras as the film was made to have a WIDE Range Exposure Latitude. And the Lomography800 film is Kodak Film as repackage Kodak Ektapress or Ultra color800 film that has a wide exposure latitude that was use in the Press media division before digital cameras made the scene... And Finally one word for you - DeCalf Please... Photography is a serious media as film photography is on comeback since how much can they place a digital camera with Steroids in the software inside the camera... Keep it Simple....
You should watch the rest of the video! We used the same camera, lens, lighting, and settings for each photo in the comparison charts. The images were taken only a few seconds apart in identical conditions.
We actually used a Hasselblad camera with the films loaded into 4 different backs so we could compare them with the same lens, same shutter, same focus, same settings. I'm with you that even two different lenses from the same manufacturer or two different, yet identical, camera bodies will still have small differences that can ruin the images. As for the color checker, I know where you're coming from, that could have been a nice addition, but I think it's kind of meaningless when you see just how well-controlled we kept everything in this video.
sorry to say this but nice armpit hair...anyway nice photos love em and I am getting into film cameras needing this information i thank you so i am sorry for pointing put the armpit haor but anyway toodles
The disposable camera, in the old days are actually reused and recycled by manufacturers.
There is a video on TH-cam which I no longer could find shows how Fujifilm factory reuses them. Fujifilm would go to developers to collect crates of empty cameras and bring it back to the factory. The camera is design modularity so the case, internal structure, battery, flash, circuit board, lens all comes off. The flash, circuit board and lens are tested to see if they are fit for reuse. After the test lens are washed, then the flash, board and lens are fitted with new structure, battery, case, film, then wrapped again with the labels and then packaged to be sold again.
The most amazing part is that this process is all *fully automatic* on assembly lines.
Nowadays the volume just doesn’t meet the cost to transport and maintain factories to reuse the cameras.
You are legit my favorite film TH-camr. I love how you combine both really important social commentary (like your misogyny in photography video) with super practical testing & stuff! Killer as always!
Aye you flatter me!! Thanks so much, and thanks for watching!
The datasheets for UltraMax 800 (lomo 800, funsaver, aurora 800) and Portra 800 are the same. Assuming those datasheets are correct, the best speculation is that Portra 800 is higher quality in terms of dyes, halide size and distribution, manufacturing processes, and post manufacturing quality control. Going off this video, a thicker film base is now one discernable difference. Which actually brings up an important question: thicker film base or layers, yet the same setting scans produce the same results as Lomo 800.. hmm)
I can't speak on the funsaver, but I'm guessing it was almost a dud.
Very good video. The community is slowing unraveling the mysteries of the almighty Big K.
But Portra 800 was the first of Kodaks camera films to switch to a thinner Estar base. So what’s up with that?
This is amazing, Yvonne! So much fun working with you on this experiment!! Thanks so much for providing the studio time and the film!
Thanks so much for being part of this with me!! It's always great to have your expertise on board!
ive been doing 35mm pano shots on my fuji gw690 for years and what helped me save a few frames was cutting a paper leader with the height of the film and the width from the film canister to the other canister + the few "blind shots" you usually take when setting up the camera after a new inserting a new film. I tape the paper leader to the actual film leader of the film and the other end on the little cut end of the receing canister.
Yvonne, this was a blast! I love how you tell stories here, can’t wait to see the next one. 💪💪💪
Thank again for being part of a fun experiment!! And thanks for the scans and charts hahaha
Okay that’s a bit weird. I’ve shot some fresh FunSaver film in my Leica and did exposure tests and it definitely came out more saturated and contrasty than Portra 800 and the grain was also noticeably larger. But the biggest difference was the over latitude and especially underexposure latitude. I’ve shot a lot of Portra 800 and the FunSave film definitely can’t keep up with Portra 800 in more challenging scenes. Also looking at the markings for the FunSaver film, it says Kodak GT 800. Which means it’s Ultramax 800. Looking at the curves in the Ultramax 800 spec sheet they’re identical to Portra 800. But Kodak isn’t always the most precise with their spec sheets. My guess is that it’s similar to how Gold 100 and 200 had the same curves. The target was the same but how they got there not. And like I said, the GT 800 was not on the same level in terms of dynamic range, grain, underexposure. And from everything I’ve seen Lomo 800 is the same as GT 800. Now what did happen is that Kodak switch from triacetate to their polyester ESTAR base for some of their films and the first to do so were Portra 800 and Color Plus. Which makes it even weirder that you said the Portra 800 was thicker and curled less because I can guarantee you, current Portra 800 is ESTAR and you can feel it.
I also wanna note that I don’t know how shooting with a medium format back effects the scanning results without the scanners or conversion software being able to use the orange mask for a base balance. If you really wanna be thorough in a comparison, real world examples are super important! But using a color chart is really the way to go. This way you can scan them in a controlled way and get the RGB values for each layer precisely.
But all that don’t matter! What I wanna know is what Aurora 800 is now?! Is it maybe the new Kodak movie film that’s supposed to be coming, based on a professional stills film? Did they take Portra 800, turned that into a movie film and sold that to Flick Film to sell for stills? I needs to know!!1
What was the methodology for scanning? The best method would've been digitizing with a digital camera on manual mode to ensure 100% identical conditions and then copy and paste inversion settings (be it in Lightroom or Photoshop) to, again, ensure identical treatment to each of photo. If they were inverted individually it's hard to jugde even if everything was set to auto. For example leaving everything at 0 on NLP doesn't mean the same thing every time, NLP does different things under the hood every time you hit convert based on the individual scan you have. Do you know any more details about that?
Also, blink twice if a certain film named after a natural phenomenon is the same thing as a certain product with a higher price that everybody loves 😉😉
I just found your channel, and I am having a blast binging through your film videos. What a gem! It's a shame that the community is so small, I feel like you'd have hundreds of thousands of subscribers if it was for a different niche with this production quality and humor. Although then i probably wouldn't write this comment.
I hope you keep doing what you do! :)
@@SloganPlay aw thanks so much! I'm glad you're enjoying my content!! I hope the community grows, then I can grow with it lol
My family didn't have much money when I was a kid, so I bought disposable cameras and always reloaded them (until they wore out) with new film to save money.
I'm glad someone else has discovered the joy of reloading disposable cameras!
Learned something today. At 4:47 the sign says 周永職燕梳. I've heard people speak the term 燕梳 before but never knew how it was written or what it meant. Turns out it actually meant "insurance", and is used by overseas Cantonese.
I really like the Lomo 800 too!
Looks like I just learned something too!!
I can't speak to Kodak disposable cameras, but I've taken apart a few disposable Fujifilm cameras, and you absolutely do have to damage them to open them up. Just getting to the roll is not too destructive, but you still have to bend back a plastic seam that will stay open unless you press it back down, and it's clear that it won't survive being bent back and forth too many times before it breaks. Reloading it is another matter entirely. You can take it apart without doing too much more damage, though you will have to bend back a couple more seams and destroy a plastic weld on the back. The issue is trying to get all the pieces back together in a dark room/bag where you can't see anything, on top of resealing any light leaks caused by the damage done during disassembly. It definitely can be done, but it's not nearly worth the effort when you can spend a little bit more on a camera that's designed to be reloaded in the field.
Wow Yvonne, what a grand collaboration, thank you and everyone involved for this interesting experiment!
Bummed to not see Aurora 800! Now I’m even more curious as to what it could be
It is a repackaged version of one of the stocks we tested! (Kodak, can I say that?)
Did you watch the video?
@@YvonneHansonPhotography you are nicer person than I am.
Of course “everything is Kodak these days”. Or almost, if one discounts the Japan-only Fuji stocks and Orwo. But I really do not know of any current 800 colour negative stock that is _not_ technically Kodak. 🤔 But very apparently there are differences in quality, and probably cost, which seem to make up for the overhead of producing different configurations 🤷🏻♀️. @@YvonneHansonPhotography
If it's repackaged portra, it would be thicker, that's easy to verify.
I worked in camera shops when disposabule cameras first came out. It took us about five mins to figure out how to remove the film safely and without damage and then reload it with new film so you could have any film you wanted in it. After that we started daisy chaining the flash capacitors together and playing rather dubious games of dare.
It was a simpler time and you had to make your wn entertainment!
I should add don't try this at home kids.
I remember a lot of Scenic places would sell disposable cameras which was kind of Handy if you happen to have your own camera.
I thoroughly enjoy watching your videos, for the content, your lively presentation skills, and for your on-onscreen persona.
hey hey hey... that fuji though, looked NICE :)
I didn't see that coming! I was sure they'd be all the same! Nice detective work🤗❤️
Thanks for doing this comparison! Definitely not cheap or easy lol. But it was super interesting getting to see how the three Kodak films compare... maybe most interesting to me was the funsaver, as I always put down the 'quality' and 'aesthetic' differences to the plastic lens, but the film itself clearly has a lot to do with that. And just good to know the cheaper Lomo is still an awesome alternative to Portra
Love taking photos at the Jack Chow building! Great work, btw!
kodak is aboutta come for your ass after exposing their "disposable cameras" lmaoo
one tip, if you shudder at losing the 35 mm format frames, shoot a Hasselblad Xpan, or a Bronica ETR ( has a 135 back!) so loading is catered for 35 mm film, so you don't waste any, plus with the bronica, it has film mags like the hasselblad, so you can swap over mid roll.
Great experiment and lovely results. I honestly don't lean towards 800-speed colour films, although Aurora does interest me. As for geeking out about cameras, it is so true! I have folk talk to me more when I'm out with my Rolleiflex or an Ikonta folder.
Alex, are you one of the people who likes it when people come up and talk to you about the camera? I get it all the time 😂
@@LearnFilmPhotography depends on my mood! Last Friday had a lovely chat with an older couple, the gentleman and I had some shared family history, mostly due to our shared Dutch heritage. If I wanted to stay focused, I put in headphones.
I also liked Lomo.
The photos looked great
How did you shoot the Fuji control roll? What did you meter for and develop , 400, 800 ISO?
What a fun experiment, and I was not expecting those results! I'm also surprised to learn that disposable cameras aren't disposable at all, I'm now miffed at the thought of all of those cameras just being tossed after a single use.
I've proudly displayed mine alongside all my other point and shoots, giving it the place it deserves among other cameras 🥲
If i recall the main thing that is 'single use' in these disposable cameras is the flash, there is no proper charging circuit inside so once the charge is used up (or the bulb goes, they aren't designed for long life) theres no easy replacement. If you ignore or dont use the flash, then yes, it's just a cheap plastic cased camera as normal.
I kinda always assumed they were returned to the manufacturer to be reloaded and refurbished, but apparently that's not the case
Late to comment, but great photos as always! I am a big fan of Lomo 800 so glad to see it holds up well against the industry standard Portra.
As others have said, you can stick the paper backing from 120 onto the roll of 35 to save yourself the horror of wasting so much film haha (I think shooting in the 220 back supposedly gets you most of the roll?).
I think a medium format camera would go well with your kind of studio work. Doesn't have to be a pricey hassy, maybe something like a solid 6x4.5 SLR (Mamiya, Pentax, Bronica etc) would work great.
The funsaver shots are noticeably less sharp than the rest, but I didn't hear you mention it. Is the grain just coarser leading to less sharpness in the color dyes, or maybe there was some focusing issue when scanning (due to the thinner base)? There's also a light leak in the picture at 10:43 - was that the camera's fault? Maybe it was not well pressed against the backplate?
I thought lomo 800 was the same thing as what's in the disposable cameras (gold 800 / ultramax 800, whatever you want to call it), but these comparison pics have the funsaver standing out as being much more different to lomo than lomo to portra. So I have even more questions now than before the video!
I think a few of the funsavers we might have missed focus, there were a few less-than-perfect test shots. I didn't notice the overall trend that they were less sharp, but I can see that interpretation for sure! Good eye on the light leak! Though that image was taken through a window, so it may be a refraction of a green traffic light on the nearby corner- not sure.
🤨
Since these are 35mm films in a 120 back, it's entirely possible that the pressure plate is slightly off, or one of the films wasn't spooled perfectly tight. You can blame me for that! Though looking at them on my computer now, there were a few frames where the funsaver was actually tack sharp. So I truly doubt that's a factor of the way the film is made, because, especially for that one - why would Kodak make their own unique formula for a film that they only sell in disposable cameras? That would be a ridiculously expensive endeavor for a factory to do for a product that sells the film in much lower quantities.
As for the light leak, that one frame with the motorcycle is actually the only place it showed up on the entire roll. It could have been from one of the rented film backs - I'm not too certain, but I don't think that subtracts from the test.
Any chance funsaver is ultra max ran at 800?
I've heard folks say it's either ultramax or gold 800 online. Maybe cause for another test....
So… I can’t believe that disposable cameras don’t exist. I can’t handle this. The wastage is unreal.
YA I WAS FLOORED. I think there's a possibility that some are returned to the manufacturers by commercial labs, but that might just be wishful thinking 😭
I have a bunch of younger coworkers that use "disposable" vapes that are rechargeable and even have LED screens...they just can't be refilled. 😒
When these used to get sent into Kodak for development we would reuse them and package them back up for resale.
Lomo 800 is definitely multiple different stocks depending on when/where you buy it.
I'm super confused by the data sheet thing ... though I'm glad you can see the difference between the Lomo/Kodak/Aurora 800 and Portra 800. I generally consider Portra 800 to be a true 400 ISO film, and I tend to like it more at that rating. As far as the effect the base has: I THINK Lomo 100 and Gold 200 are the same. The interesting part here (unless they've had to change stocks) is that Lomo 100 has a much thicker base than Gold 200 120 does. I've shot Lomo 100 and Gold 120 together at the same time once, and the colors seemed indistinguishable. However, the heaviness of the base might be a difference maker between the two ... Conspiracies abound!
There's a lot to consider here! I kinda want to do a 400 iso comparison at some point, and get the lomo 400 and ultramax in there as well...maybe throw portra 800 in as well??
I mean effective film speed is really affected by scanning too. But Portra 800 is a true 800 speed film, if not faster in a Frontier workflow. You can shoot it at 1600 with very little loss in image quality. And it displays the typical Kodak overexposure characteristics when rated at 400. That being said in a Frontier workflow it just behaves amazingly at 640 ISO. Although most color neg films really shine at 1/3rd over when scanned on a Frontier.
Not surprised you were upset at losing all that film with the Hasselblad!
You should have gone Bronica. The 135N back with either ETRS or SQ system would have given 36 frames. Alternatively, the excellent 135W gives 24 full panoramic shots!
I really love these deep dive videos, thankies Yvonne. 💜 Also interesting results, I guess I’ll have to put Lomo Color Negative on my shopping list. Re: scanning I found getting an old Tamron SP 90 AF for F mount and putting it on my Zf was the way to go for me. Cheap and way, way faster than any flatbed and very good results, so I won‘t order analog prints from the lab anymore. (I can send you the link to a roll of NC500 I recently shot and digitised, I have decided I adore that film by the way. Side note, have you made a Patreon yet? 😬 Buy me a coffee does not work that well for me.)
I need to invest in a scanner set up pretty soon! I'm at the "overhwelmed with options" stage, but I should really just pick one and make it work. Will check your rec! No patreon yet, but getting one started is on my 2024 goals list, so I will have one by the end of the year!! Thank you for your interest ;D
Yes yvone! Lomo all the way.. for the savings and the looks it produced
That was great!
Great video! So smart and gorgeous too
I would have thought that the emulsions are (somewhat) different, since it is not that much of a hassle to change formulations between coating runs. The work involved for setup is always the same. So maybe there are different numbers of color layers, the base material can be different, and maybe the formulations are different due to customer preference - Lomography might've told Kodak to give it more punch, so Kodak might've used something out of their cookbooks that would fit. But why this Funsaver 800 is so much worse than the other two - I have no idea (unless it *has* less layers to save costs and discourage people to just buy the disposable cameras and take the film off for re-use in better cameras ;-)).
I think it's complicated to DEVELOP an emulsion, but not necessarily to just keep making it. If it was worthwhile back in the day, they could keep going due to momentum. Doesn't have any bearing on it being true or not, just that it doesn't seem "far fetched" to me up front.
I hate to waste the film leader loading my camera. When I can I load in a darkroom, which on 35mm usually gets me up to 39-40 shots on a 36 roll.
How do you trick the camera (say a Nikon Fe where you have to crank a few times to get to 0) into starting the roll earlier?
I have heard once that a disposable camera used to be called recyclable cameras, and I saw a video of a whole disassembly line that could take apart these cameras component by component without breaking any of it. This in order to completely reuse them in the future. Unfortunately I can't find the video anymore.
I'd like to believe that is still happening!!
I've worked in both camera shops and photo labs between 2005 until 2015 and I don't recall anyone calling them recyclable cameras. That said, we would ship hundreds of disposables back to both Fuji and Kodak each month for them to recycle and reuse.
Anyone know if taping a leader onto the roll of 35 to waste less frames in a medium format camera could cause issues? Love the results!
No, it's perfectly fine. You're going to have to manually wind it back into the canister anyway so there's no real risk in it.
We definitely should have done that :0
I always kind of assumed that “disposable cameras” would find their way back to the manufacturers who would then refurbish and reload them and sell as new again. They seem like too much of a resource to just throw away
I always thought fun saver film was a version of Gold. Mainly because I remember it being labeled Gold back in the day and package coloring screams gold as well
Great video!!
If you really want to know the (possible) differences in color film, you should print them manually on RA-4 paper. If scanned, the systems will always interpret the picture automatically in many ways. There is no such thing as unedited scan.
great video. thx
After scanning rollls myself and comparing to how the same rolls were scanned by a lab, I can't take the comparison offered here seriously. There are huge differences in how labs deliver scans, and huge differences in how you do scans. The way the sausage is made is not pretty, and it turns out most of the film 'look' is how you do it in post after scanning. Rarely does the raw unedited tiff scan look good, and most labs have a preset when they send to customers, otherwise most customers would be angry at the flat scans they'll be getting.
Intersting video!
It’s great that the Lomo 800 is basically on par with Portra 800! Meanwhile, the Funsaver film looks like a bad batch of Portra that would have otherwise been thrown out. Guess when a Portra film doesn’t pass QA, it goes into a disposable camera …
The Fuji is weird; in a few shots I actually like it the most, but in several it looked the worst to me. Feels a bit inconsistent?
Lomo CN is an impressive film.
I've been saying it for decades but because I'm a no one on the internet, no one pays me any attention....
Having worked a several camera shops for many years the one thing I learned from the both Kodak and Fuji reps was that "pro" film is nothing more than aged "consumer" film. And since 2007, I have only purchased so called cheap film and let it expire in the fridge. To this day, I personally, have not seen a huge difference between a Portra and an UltraMax and have never had the need to spend extra money on pro film for my wedding clients.
bullshit
Which filmstocks do you age then? I'm curious to test the results myself lol
@@barlosjimbo5200 Whatever I find at my local Walmart really. Right now I have Fuji C200, the 'new' Fuji 200, Fuji Xtra 400 and the 'new' Fuji 400 and UltraMax 400.
I don't get too hung up on which brand or stock TBH. Because my lab tech does the heavy lifting of color matching.
Honestly, I feel ALOT of film photographers overcomplicate this to the max. Just buy what you can afford, age it, expose it to what you think is right, have a good lab tech you trust with your life and collect your pay check at the end of the day.
They have the monopoly and the mode of production simply Marx vs capital…. I like your hair -🏴☠️🦄
Any camera is a disposable if you just throw it away 😀 also personal preference but porta is a little overrated, Fuji has the good stuff for me
I think kodak is instead of throwing out there used portra chemicals there recycling the dirty used chemicals and turning it into funsaver film.
I actually prefer Fuji 400 the most
I’d guess that maybe two of these are the same emulation, maybe the other one is just an off spec product that didn’t make the quality control 😅
Interesting 🤔
use a paper leader to load 35mm into a medium format camera then you won't waste any film, just a bit of tape and paper.
Subscribed!
you coul have loaded the films in a darkroom or a bag and not waste frames
I dont understand why you'd go to such lengths yet not use a grey card on at oeast one scene
1:26
excuse me, but i'm not going to comment on your video. thank you
Dangit 😭
That is not a test by comparing in using different cameras, Ok,in using favorite model as you mention that is not a real test OK, a real test is adding a Macbeth Color Checker, or a Kodak Color & B/W Step wedge to compare the color profiles, and the Exposure Latitude of all the 800 film that is being mention. Also when using different lenses in which it is shown on this video will Give You A Different Look, Japan, and German Optics will give you a Different Look. A Disposable Camera only has One Shutter Speed, and one F/Stop, in which the film that are inside these cameras as the film was made to have a WIDE Range Exposure Latitude. And the Lomography800 film is Kodak Film as repackage Kodak Ektapress or Ultra color800 film that has a wide exposure latitude that was use in the Press media division before digital cameras made the scene... And Finally one word for you - DeCalf Please... Photography is a serious media as film photography is on comeback since how much can they place a digital camera with Steroids in the software inside the camera... Keep it Simple....
You should watch the rest of the video! We used the same camera, lens, lighting, and settings for each photo in the comparison charts. The images were taken only a few seconds apart in identical conditions.
We actually used a Hasselblad camera with the films loaded into 4 different backs so we could compare them with the same lens, same shutter, same focus, same settings. I'm with you that even two different lenses from the same manufacturer or two different, yet identical, camera bodies will still have small differences that can ruin the images. As for the color checker, I know where you're coming from, that could have been a nice addition, but I think it's kind of meaningless when you see just how well-controlled we kept everything in this video.
Haarige Angelegenheit 😢
sorry to say this but nice armpit hair...anyway nice photos love em and I am getting into film cameras needing this information i thank you so i am sorry for pointing put the armpit haor but anyway toodles