I worked at a newspaper years ago that published many full-color fashion photos, mostly casual portraits. In one of our most popular features, a successful model ventured into the city accompanied by a reporter and photographer and identified people with interesting clothing choices. These folks' stories and photos would be published in our newspaper. One week, through a major miscommunication, the photographer didn't show up. Undaunted, the model bought several disposable cameras from a nearby Walgreens and coached the reporter on taking the photos. The key was to buy a disposable that had a flash - and to always use the flash. Few shots were taken head-on in full sun; most had side- or backlighting. In all of them, the model made the subjects at ease and ensured they assumed flattering poses. When we published the photos, you couldn't tell the difference between them and the previous week's taken with a fully tricked-out Nikon or Canon SLR.
@@adam207321 -> It wasn't that a "total sod" took terrible photos, but that the disposable camera produced good photos. Newsprint is a great equalizer.
Disposable cameras get the three extra shots because they are loaded in the dark and there is no wasted leader. So this is a 24exp film but you can use the entirety of it for three additional shots. That's why the Funsaver has 39.
The shadows have a slightly greenish tint which is the signature Fujifilm film look. So it looks like the camera you bought was loaded with actual Fujifilm film, not Kodak film.
If I recall correctly, Fuji dominated the disposable market early on because its cameras used 35mm film while Kodak's were 110 format. Before long, Kodak switched to 35mm.
Just bought two of these to send with my daughter to camp for the week. Also sending her with two cheap digital cameras (popsnap and Polaroid wave). I’ll be interested to see what the results will be by the end of the week. I’m betting the film produces better images than the digital ones. But I could be wrong.
as a photographer (photo enthuist) and as someone who has a degree in commercial photography and who has a ton of these and kodak's its not a bad investment I wouldd rather recommend this camera to a beginner rather than those cheap $50 kodak point and shoot that break way too easily. but if you want a film point and shoot camera that has a better build quality and is waterproof I recommend olympus mju 2
I wouldn't mind getting one of these and salvaging the lens to make a lens for my digital cameras. But I got a good feeling that I can just go to one of my local photography shops and ask if they got any empty disposable cameras lying around that are destined for the recycling center/trash.
These cameras were a problem in the early 2000s (and late 90s). So much of waste was generated, horrible. And also at tourists spots where people have lost them, etc., because they were cheap. They are actually very easy to open and reload if you have done it once.
Cool but these are a waste of money when you can get any number of cheap point and shoot film cameras for under $50. You also have great iPhone apps that nail the disposable look from Kodak, Fuji, AGFA and others, right in your pocket, and with the ability to use the wide angle or telephoto lenses. Something not possible with a disposable camera obviously.
They were fine when loaded with Superia... but now since Fuji betrayed the film community, they now load it with their Fuji 400 film, and it is all Kodak. Not as good looking negatives.
I worked at a newspaper years ago that published many full-color fashion photos, mostly casual portraits. In one of our most popular features, a successful model ventured into the city accompanied by a reporter and photographer and identified people with interesting clothing choices. These folks' stories and photos would be published in our newspaper. One week, through a major miscommunication, the photographer didn't show up. Undaunted, the model bought several disposable cameras from a nearby Walgreens and coached the reporter on taking the photos. The key was to buy a disposable that had a flash - and to always use the flash. Few shots were taken head-on in full sun; most had side- or backlighting. In all of them, the model made the subjects at ease and ensured they assumed flattering poses. When we published the photos, you couldn't tell the difference between them and the previous week's taken with a fully tricked-out Nikon or Canon SLR.
your pro guy with the pro SLR might have been a total sod if his pictures looked as bad as the disposable camera.
@@adam207321 -> It wasn't that a "total sod" took terrible photos, but that the disposable camera produced good photos. Newsprint is a great equalizer.
Disposable cameras get the three extra shots because they are loaded in the dark and there is no wasted leader. So this is a 24exp film but you can use the entirety of it for three additional shots. That's why the Funsaver has 39.
Thanks for this!
The shadows have a slightly greenish tint which is the signature Fujifilm film look. So it looks like the camera you bought was loaded with actual Fujifilm film, not Kodak film.
If I recall correctly, Fuji dominated the disposable market early on because its cameras used 35mm film while Kodak's were 110 format. Before long, Kodak switched to 35mm.
Just bought two of these to send with my daughter to camp for the week. Also sending her with two cheap digital cameras (popsnap and Polaroid wave). I’ll be interested to see what the results will be by the end of the week. I’m betting the film produces better images than the digital ones. But I could be wrong.
Never used the regulars but the fuji underwater disposable are honestly incredible for $15. Blown away by it
The pictures from the trip are so cute
as a photographer (photo enthuist) and as someone who has a degree in commercial photography and who has a ton of these and kodak's its not a bad investment I wouldd rather recommend this camera to a beginner rather than those cheap $50 kodak point and shoot that break way too easily. but if you want a film point and shoot camera that has a better build quality and is waterproof I recommend olympus mju 2
I wouldn't mind getting one of these and salvaging the lens to make a lens for my digital cameras. But I got a good feeling that I can just go to one of my local photography shops and ask if they got any empty disposable cameras lying around that are destined for the recycling center/trash.
Disposable Camera? Omg that’s cute. My mom had one of those.
Love your Videos :)
Thanks, friend!
3:50 A bad photographer always blames his daughter
They’re great life documenting tools for sure, but you have to operate within their strengths.
Hi, did you use the flash even on broad daylight?
The text to speech video description got a couple of words mixed up. Give it a read.
These cameras were a problem in the early 2000s (and late 90s). So much of waste was generated, horrible. And also at tourists spots where people have lost them, etc., because they were cheap. They are actually very easy to open and reload if you have done it once.
I think theyve switched the inside from superia to fuji400
Cool but these are a waste of money when you can get any number of cheap point and shoot film cameras for under $50. You also have great iPhone apps that nail the disposable look from Kodak, Fuji, AGFA and others, right in your pocket, and with the ability to use the wide angle or telephoto lenses. Something not possible with a disposable camera obviously.
Is that waterfall in middlesboro?
Yep! Just out of town.
@@Overexposed1 awesome I’ve got a few pics of that same waterfall. I live in Middlesboro.
Shame that area is so messy. Last time I was there people were just dumping trash it looked like.
I’m from Barbourville. Just down the road!
@@Overexposed1 yeah it’s always a mess. Garbage everywhere. You’re not far at all. We should photo walk some time.
@jms3082 sounds great to me!
They were fine when loaded with Superia... but now since Fuji betrayed the film community, they now load it with their Fuji 400 film, and it is all Kodak. Not as good looking negatives.
They’re not supposed to be good