Film Reviews

You get what you pay for... In many places and stores the Fuji film is less exppensive than the Kodak. Spend the extra 2 dollars and buy the Kodak. I bought the Fuji film because it was on sale, the first roll that i shot was okay, except that my friend was using the exact same camera as me (Olympus) and he shot w./the Kodak 400 ISO and it was much sharper and much better quality than my shots. Then the second roll of the Fuji i put in jamed and i had to get my camera fixed for a cost of 20 dollars. The peeople at the repair shop said that the film was made improperly and that is why it got stuck in my camera. I will never buy Fuji film again, their developing process is also sub-par compared w/Kodak but i won't disuss that here. Save yourself the touble buy the Kodak.

I performed extensive tests (about 2 rolls each) of Fuji and Kodak APS films at 100, 200, and 400 ASA, using a Canon ELPH camera (the original aspherical zoom lens model). I shot a variety of outdoor scenes in a variety of lighting conditions (e.g. downtown skyscraper architectural with bright clear blue sunny skies, flowers and trees with both bright sun and shade, rock close-ups in overcast). I shot a few indoor locations, without a flash at ASA 400, with flash for the others. I examined the results for color, range, clarity and grain. Here's what I saw:

For ASA 100, Kodak kicked butt. Clearly better color rendition, and much, much tighter grain and better detail in all the bright lighting situations, especially with panorama print.

For ASA 400, I was pleasantly surprised that Fuji really outperformed the Kodak film. Fuji had vibrant blues and was good all across to the reds. Kodak felt washed out on the blue side, weirdly. Also surprising was that Fuji had tighter grain in bright conditions; they both looked grainy of course in lower light, but the Fuji somehow felt smoother or less chunky in the blown-up panorama prints. It also seemed to have better tonal range in both light and dark settings.

Frankly, neither of the ASA 200 films seemed acceptable to me for outdoor shots; indoors with flash, both were OK and Kodak was maybe better color. Outside, they both felt lower contrast/saturation, subsequently cramped color, didn't have the tight grain of the 100, and didn't work as well in low light and indoors (without flash) as the 400. Just seemed not worth it compared to the two options.

Recently I shot several hundred photos with my Elph 2 camera using both Fuji and Kodak film. The pictures were taken under a wide range of lighting conditions. To my eyes, the photos taken with Fuji 400 film are consistently brighter with more vivid colors than those taken with Kodak film. Fuji 400 is now the only film that I buy.

I'm not sorry this product is no longer being produced. It is extremely simple to print out pictures in black and white from a good digital camera. Join the modern world and forget about antiques like black and white film!

It seems that 99.5% of Polaroid users go with the standard color film. However, many of those users, including myself until last year, didn't know that B&W film even existed.
The B & W film is "faster"--it captures moving images with better clarity. It also captures a wider light range than the color film.
However, in everyday use, the B & W film is great for taking photos that have to be faxed. The details come through and the people on the receiving end don't have to guess what the photo subject was. Doesn't matter if you're in real estate, electronics, news, whatever. The same is true of scanning. B & W takes a LOT less memory and time AND provide a sharper image than the color photos. (There is a long technical reason for this, but just take my word for it....)
The worst part about this film is that....it's difficult to find. Most major retailers don't carry it (Fred Meyer/Kroger Group, Wal-Mart, Best Buy) and many don't know that it exists. Best way to find it is on-line.

I searched high and low for this film to no avail, so decided to call customer service to inquire how I can obtain this hard to find film. They informed me that they've stopped making it! It's such a shame because Polaroids shot in black and white are so much more distinctive than color. Please write to them and ask them to manufacture it again!!

I have found this to be a quality product. It is very cheap and efficient. I enjoy using this film everyday in my Joy Camera. I would recommend this to anyone who is an avid photographer.

Worked fine with my camera and easy to load.

i'm a photographer that has just discovered Polaroids. I love my Joycam camera and the film-- the prints you get are small but detailed and colorful. They're like small works of art. Avoid shades of gray as the film works better with sunlight even though the flash unit works really well. I like my Joycam and prints so much I've created a Polaroid journal and I use the Polaroids to illustrate my journal with daily events and the special people in my life. The problem is, when you start shooting these little pictures at parties everyone will want a copy and, at a buck a piece, it can get expensive and you'll always be out of film so stock up.

Its great for the convenience especially if youre like me and you dont want to wait for developing time however if you are travelling I would suggest a 35 mm cam instead because pictures could get ruined in packing and I find the picture quality to be a little dark As opposed to some 35mm that have a clearer brighter picture quality.

Let's be honest... this film isn't great. Reviewers who are praising its "GREAT COLOR!" and clarity may be confused with Polacolor peel-apart film, which yields extremely high quality. This stuff, on the other hand, is consumer-grade and is worse than 35mm film in these respects.

That's why I love it. While it isn't accurate, this film's color reproduction says "Polaroid" all over it. That really adds a certain dimension to your photos. Especially if you are photographing more "serious" subjects (i.e., not just family/friends), the polaroid has a way of lightening it up and making your photography look more nonchalant. It also "ages" your film for you, giving the photographs an old, faded feel right from the start.

If you've got an old polaroid camera lying around the house, take it out, by a pack of this stuff, and experiment. It's a lot of fun.

Got a good price, I'm happy. Film was fine.

Its great for the convenience especially if youre like me and you dont want to wait for developing time however if you are travelling I would suggest a 35 mm cam instead because pictures could get ruined in packing and I find the picture quality to be a little dark As opposed to some 35mm that have a clearer brighter picture quality.

Let's be honest... this film isn't great. Reviewers who are praising its "GREAT COLOR!" and clarity may be confused with Polacolor peel-apart film, which yields extremely high quality. This stuff, on the other hand, is consumer-grade and is worse than 35mm film in these respects.

That's why I love it. While it isn't accurate, this film's color reproduction says "Polaroid" all over it. That really adds a certain dimension to your photos. Especially if you are photographing more "serious" subjects (i.e., not just family/friends), the polaroid has a way of lightening it up and making your photography look more nonchalant. It also "ages" your film for you, giving the photographs an old, faded feel right from the start.

If you've got an old polaroid camera lying around the house, take it out, by a pack of this stuff, and experiment. It's a lot of fun.

Got a good price, I'm happy. Film was fine.

My wife and I bought this camera at the last minute to take with us to Hawaii for our honeymoon. We went snorkeling in Molikini (who hasn't?) and I have to say 3 things about this camera that have been mentioned already but need to be taken into serious consideration.

1. Price - A $10 waterproof disposable camera is very reasonable. I think for the price this camera is everything it is suppossed to be. The charter we went on the snorkeling trip with was renting $400 cameras with all the bells and whistles for $20 and $10 per roll of film.

2. Flash - For a snorkeling trip, and staying close to the surface I have to say this camera didn't do too bad. The colors were a bit blueish but nothing that I can't live with. As far as my 25 foot dive down to a turtle to get a picture, I shouldn't have wasted the picture, it is dark and blurry without a flash.

3. Eye Piece - This is a big pain to use with goggles. I eventually stopped trying to aim and just started snapping pictures. I would have to say that to be able to take clear photos underwater this camera needs a bigger eye piece.

Overall I was satisfied with this camera but to tell you the truth I wish I would have rented the camera from the boat with the flash (if only for the picture of me and a giant turtle).

I used 2 of these cameras on vacation in Aruba. I took one down to 85ft with no problems. There is no flash so you better have great visibility or there will be no pictures. The camera is bouyant so you also need to use the rubber band tether that comes with it. I did not put it in my BC pocket for fear that it would come out and rush to the surface. But it was fine on my wrist.

My friends and I took a trip to the Oregon Coast last weekend or some boogie boarding and wouldn't you know it, half way there I realized I left my camera at home! We pulled into a mini mart and I picked up this great little single use camera.

This little Kodak camera worked out so much better than my digital would have anyway - seeing as I wouldn't have dared bring the digital INTO the water! The pictures came out crisp and full of color, it was fun to use and to take underwater pictures of friends, and to top it off it was super cheap! This is actually my first experience with a single use camera where the photos came out good (it's been a long time since I've used one and those pictures came out all grainy.)

Others mentioned the lack of flash as a downfall, but for daytime use it worked like a gem. I'd recommend this camera to anyone who wants to take some water shots in the sun. For that use, this a five star item!

For slides this ScanWit an another one I tried both produced severe banding and noise. That was whether attached to the supplied SCSI card or my own Diamond FirePort 40 Dual - using different leads and the ScanWit being actively terminated. My reason for buying it was to convert to using slides for overall better quality. I can hide the banding by making the slides darker but that makes for inferior scans.

If you have one, you might try this yourself: crank up the brightness or the midtones on the Curves tool or Levels in either Mira or Photoshop. These bands occur even on a Raw scan. Now look for any banding effects...

Negatives are a different story. They are clear of noise and banding. I suppose it is the greater range of slides which pushes the scanner to its limits - at which mine fails.

Oddly, others claim slides are excellent and negatives are rubbish. Plainly, there are serious inconsistencies in these scanners. If you buy one, check it out carefully and make sure you can return it if it fails to be what you expect.

Thankfully, I can return mine. I will try another one and hope I get one that is good for slides and negs.

Contrary to the first reviewer, a passive terminator is not needed if this is the only SCSI device in the computer and you are using the bundled SCSI card. All I needed to do was plug in the SCSI card, hook up and scanner, install the driver, and boom, it's working! You do, however, need a terminator if you're hooking up the scanner to a third party SCSI card (ex. Adaptec). The scanner produces excellent scans for negatives, and very good results with slide films. Bundled software, Mirafoto, has ver nice features and is easy to use. However, for certain negative films it does not produce the most accurate colors, but that can easily be corrected in any imaging software (Photoshop 5 LE is included). For this price, this scanner is an excellent buy!

This is a wonderful scanne, loads of detail, with little shadow noise. The negative carriers and software are a bit fiddly, but the results are good with a little playing with the defaults. With a little looking, you can find this for a great ... price.

I bought this premium transparency film and had no problems using it in my old HP DeskJet. But then my HP DeskJet printer died and I bought an Epson Stylus C82.

These transparencies work like crap in the Epson, maybe by design? Instead of getting solid black areas, I get severe banding (tiny horizontal lines that ink doesn't stick to), making this stuff useless for the printed circuit board exposures I wanted to use it for. IBM transparencies work perfectly in the Epson printer, so I don't blame the printer, it's these HP transparencies.

Only buy these if you know you will only be using them on an HP printer!

These transparency sheets are thicker than other brands, and have a deeper grain on them. They hold ink better. The Office Depot brand is cheaper, but I lost time and money by using the off brand because the ink kept running.

In conclusion, using this brand could save you a lot of frustration; and in the long run they will save you money.

These transparencies by Hewlett-Packard are high-end products designed for hard tasks. They are hard, unlike most of other companies' products, which is good, as they wear out slower and are less prone to accidental damage. Also, the stripe is on the left, and not on the top, as in most generic transparencies. This may be important if you want to save space. Usually, the text of your presentation does not fill the entire horizontal space. You wnat as much of the vertical space as possible, and for this reason HP transparencies do a fine job. Pictures and colors look superb on this hard-surfaced transparency.

If you present papers less than once a month, consider buying HP. Go for quality.

I have checked three Target stores in a 50 mile radius and all three stores DO NOT have this film ever in stock. I purchased my camera at a Target Store in October 2002. I went to purchase film a month later and it was out of stock. So I tried other Target Stores and had the same problem. The problem still exists. If Target is going to sell a product they should stock the accessory for that product.

I love my MIO camera and the crisp, fun-sized photos it takes (they're absolutely perfect for photographing your shoes and sticking on the shoe boxes...), but like most people, I've had an incredibly hard time finding the film. I called Polaroid today and they said it is no longer available in stores and that "management" is making a decision on what to do in the future. In other words, my 3-month-old camera may be useless soon. If you're planning to purchase the camera, don't - you might not be able to get film for it. Sorry :(

I bought this camera for my 12 1/2 year old daughter. The camera takes great pitures and they are the perfect size for her and her friends. I am having a really hard time finding the film where we live, that is the only complaint that I would have. For anyone that has a teen or preteen that likes to take pictures to share with there friends I would encourage you to get this camera. As we all know buying and developing film can get costly, this is a great alternative. Also, It is simple to understand and to use.

it's like this thing has a timer on it. When the warranty expires, it will literally fall apart. I say stay away from it. I'm kidding, it totally rules. You should buy it.

I love the camera but it seems difficult to find some accessories which I had come to rely on with my old camera. I may just have to upgrade to another Canon SLR.

I bought the Rebel 2000 over a year and a half ago. My previous camera was a twenty-year-old Canon AE-1. I was very happy with the AE-1 but was having trouble seeing to focus in low-light situations. So far the Rebel 2000 has been a great camera - I think I've used every feature at least once. I added a 100 mm portrait lens.

My only dissatifaction is that I haven't been able to find a remote or off-camera shutter release that works. I was sold a Canon Remote Control RC1 which did not work. I like to use an off-camera shutter trigger of some kind in portrait and low-light conditions to minimize camera shake. I also can't find the cable to connect the hot shoe to my studio lights.

On the whole, I am happy with the Canon Rebel 2000.

I work in a retail camera store and I have sold more Rebel 2000 camera kits than any other kind of SLR, and I have seen very few returns due to dissatisfaction. The Rebel 2000 has an impressive list of features such as multiple exposure, auto exposure bracketing, selectable focal points, and a full range of factory presets(such as auto for the beginner). Most beginning photographers find the camera's internal lcd screen easy to understand and the built in speedlite (flash) is also a huge plus with this camera. The only negative things that I have to say about the camera is it's weight. I have many older cameras and they were made out of real metal and this just can't compare. The only real option to escape a plastic bodied camera is to a. find an older one, b. get a professional grade camera, or c. go without since most every SLR company out there is making their cameras out of light-weight plastic. For example, the Nikon N 60 was one of the only cameras out there that was heavier than the Rebel 2000. The N60 is being replaced by the N65 and, from what I have been told, it will actually be lighter and better able to compete with the Canon Rebel 2000. In other words the N60 is being replaced with a camera that is full of features and light just like the Rebel 2000. It will be interesting to see how well the Rebel 2000 competes with the new Nikon N65 because they are both going to be in about the same price point.

So, if someone wants a very nice camera with a full range of Canon accesories and lenses to back it up--this is the camera. One could also upgrade to one of the many other Canon SLRs out there, but for the amateur to advanced amateur user this camera will last them for a very long time.