Kodak

After just returning from a trip abroad I thought I should let my views on disposable cameras out. I have used this in the past, a few times, when I cant be bothered to replace the batteries in my own camera as they are £13 a go. I must admit, they are not a bad picture for their money. I tend to use Kodak because you are garaunteed to get good results because of the name as some of the other makes have proven bad quality or have just not come out. I mean, what are you getting for your £7? You are getting the facility to take your pictures without the need to carry heavy camera equipment around or risk having expensive cameras stolen while away. The picture ...  Read the complete review

Like other photographers, I have preferences when it comes to using film. Kodak products are ok but they do tend to suffer one major problem. Coldness. An image taken with kodak film has an overall 'blueness' about it which gives landscapes in particular, a less than natural feel. It is not very obvious at first, but when a kodak photo comes up against a warmer toned image such as Fuji in an exhibition or competition, the difference is obvious. Kodak themselves recognise this and as a result of surveying the feelings of professional and club photographers some years back, they developed the 'Gold' range for print workers. To avoid problems ...  Read the complete review

I find this film a bit hit and miss, if perfectly exposed it offers a fantastic result with good colour and grain characteristics. The problems occur when lighting conditions are poor or if the subject has strong colours, for me Kodak Gold does not 'cut it' in the same way the Fuji Superia can. In an ideal world all exposures would be perfect but in reality they aren't, over and under exposed negatives tend to look very drab and the colours a little unrealistic. If you can guarantee perfectly exposed negatives this is a good film, if you can't try another film as the latitude of this one is not the best I have seen. ...  Read the complete review