Tri-X in a Disposable Camera!?

Discussion in 'News' started by c_watson|1, Dec 2, 2021.

  1. ]

    ]

    Ilford has already done this. Kodak now has a professional disposable camera, due to this. They went Ilford one better. Hillbilly Leica right here (LOL).
     
  2. Ilford started stuffing C-41 b&w XP-2 into disposables years ago. Ilford rolled out its little "reusable" 35mm Sprite camera this year and, again, Kodak Alaris is doing the same with its cheesy M-35 "reloadable" toy.

    Not sure how the target market will react to the trouble and expense of b&w processing in 2021. They're likely not snorting fix fumes at home regularly...
     
  3. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    Interesting, I did enough processing that despite care, I had developer fingernails. I never found the B&W processing to be unpleasant. The color, of several types darn near toxic. It was bad enough that I did some of it only at night so I could open the darkroom door a bit.
     
    ] likes this.
  4. Aaah-----perhaps we are returning to our roots ?.
    ;).
     
    luis triguez likes this.
  5. Honestly, in today's world, intro'ing a disposable, single use plastic camera - or plastic & disposable anything else, really- seems completely tone deaf to me.
    I might take a kinder view of this IF they would recycle the camera units, reload and re-sell them once the film has been developed. Call me cynical, this just has so been done.
     
    Roger G and ] like this.
  6. Beyond the environmental issues, if I was willing to go through the effort to develop the film myself or find a lab that will process TRI-X, I might as well run that film through a better camera instead of being stuck at 1/125 @ f10.
     
    Ricochetrider and ] like this.
  7. I suspect that they are mostly useful for photography classes.

    It seems that Kodak has a recycling system. If someone uses them for a class,
    they can collect all of them and get them into recycling.

    If you used the M-35 for the class, most of them would sit in drawers at home
    after the end of the class, likely never used again.

    The amount of plastic might be about the amount in a plastic bottle.
     
  8. If it wasn't for cine film, one wonders how much longer the Kodak Alaris show will go on.
     
    Ricochetrider likes this.
  9. Isn't cine film sold directly by Eastman, not Alaris? I thought Alaris was just still films like Ektar and Tri-x and Ektachrome.
     
  10. Joined at the hip, corporately it seems.
     
  11. Great to finally see a professional disposable.

    I suspect the disposable market is quite big. Every time I go to my local lab there are always people (mostly women in their late teens early 20's) lined up with hands full of disposables to be processed.

    I have even at two occasions overheard customers express worries if the pictures would be as "good" as with a disposable when the well-meaning lab staff tried to save repeating customers some money by pushing an Ilford Sprite or AgfaPhoto reloadable.
     
  12. None of this works if the local film ecosystem collapsed years before. Even it it hasn't, the cost of the camera+processing+printing(b&w !?)+scanning will give pause when phone pix can be shared quickly. Total non-starter for Kodak--again.
     
  13. If you want them lab processed, use the Ilford XP-2 version.
    There are still enough C-41 labs around.

    The Tri-X version only makes sense for self processing,
    which I suspect means a class.

    As well as I know, people used to run darkroom photography
    classes with the Diana camera, but they now cost $99.

    It makes more sense to use these, maybe even with a bulk
    discount. Also, the teacher can box them up for recycling.
    I suspect that existing labs have the Kodak connection for
    recycling them.
     
  14. Beater SLRs with 50mm lenses seem popular with students at OCAD in Toronto. Two rolls of film for the cost of a disposable...
     
    ] likes this.
  15. Yes that is a good choice. Probably for college, or even high school.

    Simpler cameras are probably better for younger kids, though.
     
    ] likes this.
  16. Some viewfinder cameras (like Olympus XA2) are often far less expensive than a single use camera and have a much wider range of exposures. However, cameras such as the XA2 are not always easy to find. An alternative is to carry a few neutral density filters of various strengths and bracket the exposure. I would at least commend Kodak for offering an easy way to try Tri-X with minimal work.
     
    ] likes this.
  17. Olympus: Olympus XA-2 Price Guide: estimate a camera value

    says about $70 for the XA-2. Less for the XA-1 and XA-3, but still a lot more than the single use cameras.

    It seems that you can get the Tri-X version for close to $10, not so much more than a roll of Tri-X.

    Now, you can get a Canon FTb for close to $10, but it doesn't look or feel much like an XA-2
    or any disposable.

    By the way, 100ft rolls of Tri-X are now about $130, but HP5+ is about $86.
    About $106 for 100ft of XP-2 super.
     
  18. ]

    ]

    Depends on the kid. Taught my Godson how to use a manual camera at age 7, and he has two Nikkormats, and a bevy of lenses as a teenager. And he knows how to use a Luna Pro very well (he also owns one).
     
  19. When I worked in a photolab, Kodak would accept back used single use cameras for recycling. I don't know if they still do it, but in the past, they did get recycled. I would assume the plastic just gets melted down for making new cameras.
     

Share This Page