Kodak Daylight Single Use disposable camera launched in Europe

Recycling is better than nothing, but still highly inefficient.

Recyclable??? Great! 98% of the waste floating on the oceans are also recyclable!!!!!

You can buy strike anywhere matches on ebay.

You can buy matches and you can buy strike anywhere matches. You just can't buy strike anywhere matches that work as reliably as matches from the '80's or earlier.

They actually tried to introduce disposable digital cameras. I just dropped my yaw when I saw it. Just put an SD card in a simple camera and take the SD card to the shop for printing already.

No one really cares any more - all they need is a cellphone. I used to be the only one with a decent camera in our group so I took photos for everyone - now they all have a cellphone - photos from me are no longer required - nice if I send them

only way to learn photography is to start with the basic is so old and tiring
--------------------
Hm..I`m old and tiring at 66. But anyways --- I´m still a teacher of photography and photojournalism.
When I look at modern photos -- they all look the same, tiring and boring and bad quality, cause people do not want to learn photography.

And there were tons of terrible photos back then. Now it is just more visible since everybody can take a photo and post it online. Your idea that back then people took only good photos is laughable.

Modern photos look tiring and boring? Maybe you should broaden your horizons. My dad got me into photography and when I see old photos from his times from quite popular photographers where he lived, their photos were nothing spectacular.

Your idea that back then people took only good photos is laughable.
----------------
Did I write so?
Did I have that idea?
Show me where.
I write about not learning to take pictures, the results can be seen everywhere in my broad horizons. Just plagiarism all the time. And plagiarism of old photographs. If one does not want to learn - he/she cannot shoot . 10 000 hours is needed and 4-5 five years of school of photography. The problem is people are so ignorant today they cannot talk about visual values. But there is no use to have this conversation - the hate is coming out immediately.

@PhilDunn we're not being made great again by saddling our students with a hundred grand in college debt that requires 30 years to pay back. And we weren't really great till that socialist WPA, WWII with specific rules to prevent Corporations from profiteering from it, then those socialist interstate freeways and SBA and Rural Electrification Administration and space program and internet. Also unions, pensions, Social Security and living wages.

Socialist nonsense-everyone working together collectively for the common good-is exactly what made us great. But whatever you need to tell yourself to justify #childrenincages

I am an American, fourth generation. I know plenty about the noble one man against the world 1870s version of American culture where your knowledge apparently stopped. And you $26k figure is quoted for the first two years of *socialist as in funded by the government* state college is willfully ignorant-no one can get a job on two years of associate's degree. You're thinking back to 1970 when a white man with a slip of paper from any college from clown to barber could walk in and get a job good enough that his wife didn't have to work if she didn't want to.

You seem kinda ignorant of how that came about.. Because before unions and socialism lite, it was slavery: be it in a cotton field or a factory for six and a half days a week or the Asians we imported to build our railroads. That, and near infinite natural resources within an untamed continent and it only cost us the genocide of a hundred million Native Americans because manifest destiny.

At the beginning of the 20th Century, America as a country were basically hicks with new money. We didn't really grow up as a nation til the Great Depression provided that first jolt of real life cruelty into our adolescence. Because so much of that new money was concentrated at the top, then they gambled with it and lost.. hence Glass-Steagel and the WPA and taxes on the rich to pay for infrastructure investments built by poor people who now had real jobs. Why don't you think back at what all that evil socialist TVA money did for your ancestors, Phil..

I'm conversant in US history.

Again: State funded college. I'm sorry.. but the whole anti-socialism argument you're trying to make here relies *on a socialized institution* Phil. That's not left wing, it simply is fact.

I've seen a fair amount of RW politics here too and as long as people keep it civil, there hasn't been any censorship.

Socialism is great here and everyone likes it.. as long as it's for the rich.

I used plenty of these in the early 90s, albeit they were probably 200 or 400 with a flash that you primed by holding it for a few seconds.

I've got a few small photos to remember the time by, but mostly I would say these are far less efficient at capturing memories than a typical smart phone and next to useless at developing a love for photography.

Far better in my opinion to ask wedding guests to take photos with their own gear, or ask some children to walk around getting photos of tables with cameras, tablets or phones.

Definitely cool — but I recommend something a little more durable like a Pentax K1000 or Nikon FM. Same virtues, less disposable plastic.

Yep. Have a K1000, its predecessor the SP-500 and a Nikon FG20.

I don’t if that post was a joke or not. I'm leanings towards a joke. Sounds too perfectly worded in favor of film and from someone simply promoting film use. Dave, is that you again?

It probably does in a lot of cases and areas. Some might end up among the hard plastic, some together with dead phones and computer monitors for a landfill or recycle scheme, while others are thrown in the single trash bin. Just another nail in the coffin for the human race.

Here in the States a lot of these cameras are, or were, sent back to be repackaged-the mechanism was reused if it was still good.

The people who something like this is aimed at don't understand panning with the motion, nor can they get out of their wheelchairs or go too far without oxygen bottles.

What, the developers send them back to Kodak for reuse? Or how do you mean?

Recycling isn't environmentally neutral. It would cause less pollution to just encourage use of the cellphones people already have on them for the typical use cases (weddings, etc.). And I say that as a film buff and anti-cellphone person.

I remember seeing a documentary where disposable cameras were simply returned to the factory to be checked, refurbished if needed, and loaded with new film to be resold. Nothing was wasted, except for maybe old batteries.

That's actually good then, I withdraw my prior objection ;)

In other news, car makers say we will no longer need to put our sodas between our legs when they introduce features called cup holders to new automobiles.

As the single use cameras sell very well, I don't think it is out of date at all. Can't say the same about some people's knowedge of the topic though.

So the big change with this new camera is they removed the flash and give you 39 exposures instead of 27. For outdoor use only too. How did they ever figure out how to do it?

Why thank you, Gabriel. I would not have been able to figure that out.

Yes. That is exactly what that was.

hadar: why would you possibly wish it does "not get any traction"? Strange post. Maybe you somehow feel threatened by a disposable camera?

Disposable cameras are wasteful, ergo bad for the environment. They seem very unjustifiable to me considering being able to print photos from your phone almost anywhere, or grab a used low end used digital camera, or an excellent second hand film camera for nearly nothing.

Haim, they are not bad for the environment at all...because they are all recycled.

Recycling is energy-intensive and typically causes much more pollution than a multi-use camera would.

Environmental issues from digital camera production and disposal are far worse than film processing and recycling. This is an old debate that was long lost for the digital side.

You are absolutely wrong here, disposable cameras plastics can be easily collected to be recycled from the shops in regular basis. What is happening with dead electronic devices all around peoples houses is the drama...!!!

@mj

Plastic packaging is a far worse issue. As is driving your car, eating a steak, ad nauseam.

As above, they are collected and recycled when sent for developing.

Play nice.

Maybe they CAN be collected for recycling but how many actually are? What I refer to here is a general mindset whereby humans care more about the instant gratification of a product made for the here and now than the bigger picture for humanity and the planet. So no, I don't think I am absolutely wrong. What is meant by 'play nice', I wonder?

how about you worry about a much bigger picture like instant coffee cups that are made of plastic, plastic bags, fast food plastic containers, beer can plastic holders, etc. So you completely recycle or don't use items that could possibly ever be disposed of? Right...

@mjacquinot How many are collected? I can't speak for all photofinishing places, but at the shop I worked at, all of them. We took out the film, and dropped the used cameras in a dedicated bin (after taking out the AA battery for in-store use). They were shipped off to the appropriate place.

Presumably.... they are "all recycled" by the people who develop the film.

These aren't like ballpoint pens or single use razors. When you finish shooting 39 shots you can't just throw them in the trash. You have to send them somewhere for processing, and the processors will recycle them.

Of course, this still doesn't account for the packaging materials, but the odds are there aren't many of those. The biggest environmental hazard is probably the toxic chemicals used for developing the film.

This is one of those things that potentially could be an environmental threat, but not unless these sell in massive quantities. With a .01% market share, there would probably be very little environmental impact.

@ Arastoo Vaziri. Obviously you Do NOT know any old people. My father NEVER owned a Cell Phone, who should he, his land-line had served him well for over fifty years. If Kodak had''t cancelled 110 film, he wouldn't have bought a Digital P&S.

Arastoo Vaziri, pretty sure we all know who actually won that award...

cdembrey... obviously you are basing your assumption on your own personal experience with your father. And you are probably right about him, but you cannot assume that everyone else was just like he was.

You should try visiting a nursing home today. You will see laptops, smartphones and tablets in use by most old people. And they all have free WIFI.

The non-tech generation is almost gone. Anyone under 80 years old today very likely used computers before they retired.

And there are plenty of young folks today that still have cable TV and land lines, and even "shoot film" and listen to "vinyl records"..... so generalizing about age is dangerous.