The 2019 Disposable Camera Challenge - Chat

sirch

Official Forum Numpty 2015
Messages
8,685
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
#85
Well I can confirm that, for an Ilford HP5 disposable at least, the film winds back into the can and it's as simple as prising the body open with a screwdriver at the obvious places. I got a healthy spark out of the flash capacitor with the screwdriver so it may be worth shorting that but TBH there is no real need to go near it.

Just processed a roll from one :snaphappy:
 
Messages
969
Name
Brad
Edit My Images
Yes
#90
Just had my first disposable camera film back from Photo Express and thought I would post a few of the more experimental ones up. The camera is the Kodak fun saver with 800 ASA film. I'm actually quite impressed with the shots. These are some of the poor ones but there was a surprising amount of keepers. I'm keeping them top secret to go towards my entries for the comp. I thought they may be of interest to anyone else using one for the first time. They are as they came back from processing. It is very easy to get your fingers in the way of the lens !

It's very easy to over expose in bright light ( Idea of the shot was to check exposure in bright light because of the 800asa film)
OVER.JPG

taken about 8 foot away in shadow (to check exposure in these conditions and check focus distance)

KIDS.JPG

Total darkness in deepest Shropshire My lad flattened his battery, again ! I had to drive 10 miles or so to rescue him , at about 6 foot away using flash.( To see how flash worked in total darkness)

DARK.JPG
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,662
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
#91
Looking good Brad, but your "poor ones" are right up there with my "good ones" from the same camera. :banghead:
 
Messages
1,617
Edit My Images
No
#95
Have many of you been out playing with you disposable yet ?
Have mine in my coat pocket. That did mean it did not get used much last weekend as no need for a coat. It does have the advantage of being smaller than even my XA. About half-way through my 27 frames too.
 
OP
OP
simon ess

simon ess

Just call me Roxanne.
Messages
7,838
Edit My Images
No
#96
Just a couple of frames so far.
 
Messages
1,617
Edit My Images
No
#98
The oilrig yard at Nigg
Once had a day trip to Nigg, was supposed to be longer. Flew Manchester to Inverness, picked up a hire car, got to above site to meet a couple of managers, after 5 minutes metaphorically knocked their heads together, cancelled hotel, drove back to Inverness, got plane to Glasgow, then Manchester and was back in Cheshire by tea time.
 
Messages
4,662
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
#99
Once had a day trip to Nigg, was supposed to be longer. Flew Manchester to Inverness, picked up a hire car, got to above site to meet a couple of managers, after 5 minutes metaphorically knocked their heads together, cancelled hotel, drove back to Inverness, got plane to Glasgow, then Manchester and was back in Cheshire by tea time.
Ah, sounds like the "good old days" rather than the current ownership? :muted: :schtum:
 

sirch

Official Forum Numpty 2015
Messages
8,685
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Now processed and scanned and I'm completely underwhelmed by my photographic abilities. Probably going to have to get another and hope I'm starting to get my eye in with these.
 

ChrisR

I'm a well known grump...
Messages
9,250
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I happened across the negatives from the last time I did a single use challenge... in 2015! I used an Ilford HP5 camera, with a red filter taped onto the front. I decided the negs looked a little under-exposed, so I decided this time I'd tape an orange filter on the second HP5 camera I bought at the time, instead!

The main disadvantage is I have the edge of the filter cutting right across the "viewfinder", so composition is even more hit and miss than usual. It also makes it quite a bit less pocketable... And the shutter! I think the camera must move about half an inch with the effort to get the shutter pressed!
 
Messages
13,386
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
Now processed and scanned and I'm completely underwhelmed by my photographic abilities. Probably going to have to get another and hope I'm starting to get my eye in with these.
TBH this type of camera just sucks, and having followed the challenge in previous years I've barely seen a single shot that I wouldn't bin if it were taken with decent kit. It's not you, but the piece of plastic junk.
 

sirch

Official Forum Numpty 2015
Messages
8,685
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
TBH this type of camera just sucks, and having followed the challenge in previous years I've barely seen a single shot that I wouldn't bin if it were taken with decent kit. It's not you, but the piece of plastic junk.
That's the whole idea though isn't it? To at least try to prove the opposite; it's not the camera but the numpty behind the lens that takes the photo. And yes, believe me, this roll was underwhelming whatever "kit" it was snapped with
 
Messages
13,386
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
That's the whole idea though isn't it? To at least try to prove the opposite; it's not the camera but the numpty behind the lens that takes the photo. And yes, believe me, this roll was underwhelming whatever "kit" it was snapped with
I know, but I reckon your soup can pinhole cameras take a better image TBH.
 

ChrisR

I'm a well known grump...
Messages
9,250
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I've just finished scanning an Ilford HP5+ single use that's been sat around since 2015. I shot the other one with a red filter on the front, so for this one I changed to an orange filter, stuck on with sticky tape. The filter goes across the viewfinder, which does make framing a little tricky (and it shows!). A few light leaks, sadly not the interesting kind.

It wasn't until I'd got to the end that I realised I was at the beginning! I scanned it from frame number 1 onwards, but I should have scanned it starting at frame 27 (or 30, in this case). It doesn't matter really, but it's just annoying, as they'll sort the wrong way round in Aperture and I'll forget why they're like that!
 

Nod

Krispy and Kremey
Messages
33,203
Name
Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
Edit My Images
Yes
Rename the files? Or does Aperture sort by scan date/time?

SnappySnaps will be doing the DP&S for me so shouldn't have a problem (not too sure that the results will be worth cataloguing too carefully!!!)
 

ChrisR

I'm a well known grump...
Messages
9,250
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Rename the files? Or does Aperture sort by scan date/time?

SnappySnaps will be doing the DP&S for me so shouldn't have a problem (not too sure that the results will be worth cataloguing too carefully!!!)
Aperture sorts by date/time, which causes problems when some files from Filmdev comeback with zeros in the date/time field! (I've talked to them about it, appears to be files which have had some extra editing, but I'm disappointed they haven't fixed it ater more than a year.)

You're right, these are not going to be shots of major lasting value!
 
Messages
1,617
Edit My Images
No
I've been scuppered on my second 'single-use' camera. Spotted the new thread this morning and unpacked it. It was never a single-use camera - was originally a Carrefour loaded with 400 IS0 - which they refilled, later got refilled by another company with 200 ISO and put in a cardboard wrapper. It does say 'Single-use' on the outer wrapper but once inside see this on the bottom, further unwrapping showed its longer history. So will have to go with the first no-flash camera shots.

20190601_093114.jpg
 

Nod

Krispy and Kremey
Messages
33,203
Name
Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been scuppered on my second 'single-use' camera. Spotted the new thread this morning and unpacked it. It was never a single-use camera - was originally a Carrefour loaded with 400 IS0 - which they refilled, later got refilled by another company with 200 ISO and put in a cardboard wrapper. It does say 'Single-use' on the outer wrapper but once inside see this on the bottom, further unwrapping showed its longer history. So will have to go with the first no-flash camera shots.

View attachment 246558

IMO that still qualifies as a single use camera - it says so on the front and bottom of the cardboard cover so it must be true! The fact that it's been recycled is a good thing, although the fact that the original was ISO 400 but has now been reloaded with ISO 200 might result in underexposure, particularly with 12 year out of date fillum!
 
OP
OP
simon ess

simon ess

Just call me Roxanne.
Messages
7,838
Edit My Images
No
IMO that still qualifies as a single use camera
I agree. It's a single use camera that's been recycled. It is a recycled single use camera. Go for it David.
 
Top