Are These Color Filmstocks...Identical? | Testing Portra, Lomography, and Funsaver 

This is amazing, Yvonne! So much fun working with you on this experiment!! Thanks so much for providing the studio time and the film!

What was the methodology for scanning? The best method would've been digitizing with a digital camera on manual mode to ensure 100% identical conditions and then copy and paste inversion settings (be it in Lightroom or Photoshop) to, again, ensure identical treatment to each of photo. If they were inverted individually it's hard to jugde even if everything was set to auto. For example leaving everything at 0 on NLP doesn't mean the same thing every time, NLP does different things under the hood every time you hit convert based on the individual scan you have. Do you know any more details about that? Also, blink twice if a certain film named after a natural phenomenon is the same thing as a certain product with a higher price that everybody loves 😉😉

The datasheets for UltraMax 800 (lomo 800, funsaver, aurora 800) and Portra 800 are the same. Assuming those datasheets are correct, the best speculation is that Portra 800 is higher quality in terms of dyes, halide size and distribution, manufacturing processes, and post manufacturing quality control. Going off this video, a thicker film base is now one discernable difference. Which actually brings up an important question: thicker film base or layers, yet the same setting scans produce the same results as Lomo 800.. hmm) I can't speak on the funsaver, but I'm guessing it was almost a dud. Very good video. The community is slowing unraveling the mysteries of the almighty Big K.

I just found your channel, and I am having a blast binging through your film videos. What a gem! It's a shame that the community is so small, I feel like you'd have hundreds of thousands of subscribers if it was for a different niche with this production quality and humor. Although then i probably wouldn't write this comment. I hope you keep doing what you do! :)

one tip, if you shudder at losing the 35 mm format frames, shoot a Hasselblad Xpan, or a Bronica ETR ( has a 135 back!) so loading is catered for 35 mm film, so you don't waste any, plus with the bronica, it has film mags like the hasselblad, so you can swap over mid roll.

Not surprised you were upset at losing all that film with the Hasselblad! You should have gone Bronica. The 135N back with either ETRS or SQ system would have given 36 frames. Alternatively, the excellent 135W gives 24 full panoramic shots!

How did you shoot the Fuji control roll? What did you meter for and develop , 400, 800 ISO?

What a fun experiment, and I was not expecting those results! I'm also surprised to learn that disposable cameras aren't disposable at all, I'm now miffed at the thought of all of those cameras just being tossed after a single use.

I hate to waste the film leader loading my camera. When I can I load in a darkroom, which on 35mm usually gets me up to 39-40 shots on a 36 roll.

I also liked Lomo. The photos looked great

That was great!

Yes yvone! Lomo all the way.. for the savings and the looks it produced

Great video! So smart and gorgeous too

use a paper leader to load 35mm into a medium format camera then you won't waste any film, just a bit of tape and paper.

I’d guess that maybe two of these are the same emulation, maybe the other one is just an off spec product that didn’t make the quality control 😅

Okay that’s a bit weird. I’ve shot some fresh FunSaver film in my Leica and did exposure tests and it definitely came out more saturated and contrasty than Portra 800 and the grain was also noticeably larger. But the biggest difference was the over latitude and especially underexposure latitude. I’ve shot a lot of Portra 800 and the FunSave film definitely can’t keep up with Portra 800 in more challenging scenes. Also looking at the markings for the FunSaver film, it says Kodak GT 800. Which means it’s Ultramax 800. Looking at the curves in the Ultramax 800 spec sheet they’re identical to Portra 800. But Kodak isn’t always the most precise with their spec sheets. My guess is that it’s similar to how Gold 100 and 200 had the same curves. The target was the same but how they got there not. And like I said, the GT 800 was not on the same level in terms of dynamic range, grain, underexposure. And from everything I’ve seen Lomo 800 is the same as GT 800. Now what did happen is that Kodak switch from triacetate to their polyester ESTAR base for some of their films and the first to do so were Portra 800 and Color Plus. Which makes it even weirder that you said the Portra 800 was thicker and curled less because I can guarantee you, current Portra 800 is ESTAR and you can feel it. I also wanna note that I don’t know how shooting with a medium format back effects the scanning results without the scanners or conversion software being able to use the orange mask for a base balance. If you really wanna be thorough in a comparison, real world examples are super important! But using a color chart is really the way to go. This way you can scan them in a controlled way and get the RGB values for each layer precisely. But all that don’t matter! What I wanna know is what Aurora 800 is now?! Is it maybe the new Kodak movie film that’s supposed to be coming, based on a professional stills film? Did they take Portra 800, turned that into a movie film and sold that to Flick Film to sell for stills? I needs to know!!1

The disposable camera, in the old days are actually reused and recycled by manufacturers. There is a video on RU-vid which I no longer could find shows how Fujifilm factory reuses them. Fujifilm would go to developers to collect crates of empty cameras and bring it back to the factory. The camera is design modularity so the case, internal structure, battery, flash, circuit board, lens all comes off. The flash, circuit board and lens are tested to see if they are fit for reuse. After the test lens are washed, then the flash, board and lens are fitted with new structure, battery, case, film, then wrapped again with the labels and then packaged to be sold again. The most amazing part is that this process is all *fully automatic* on assembly lines. Nowadays the volume just doesn’t meet the cost to transport and maintain factories to reuse the cameras.

You are legit my favorite film RU-vidr. I love how you combine both really important social commentary (like your misogyny in photography video) with super practical testing & stuff! Killer as always!

ive been doing 35mm pano shots on my fuji gw690 for years and what helped me save a few frames was cutting a paper leader with the height of the film and the width from the film canister to the other canister + the few "blind shots" you usually take when setting up the camera after a new inserting a new film. I tape the paper leader to the actual film leader of the film and the other end on the little cut end of the receing canister.

They have the monopoly and the mode of production simply Marx vs capital…. I like your hair -🏴‍☠️🦄

kodak is aboutta come for your ass after exposing their "disposable cameras" lmaoo

Learned something today. At 4:47 the sign says 周永職燕梳. I've heard people speak the term 燕梳 before but never knew how it was written or what it meant. Turns out it actually meant "insurance", and is used by overseas Cantonese. I really like the Lomo 800 too!

hey hey hey... that fuji though, looked NICE :)

I would have thought that the emulsions are (somewhat) different, since it is not that much of a hassle to change formulations between coating runs. The work involved for setup is always the same. So maybe there are different numbers of color layers, the base material can be different, and maybe the formulations are different due to customer preference - Lomography might've told Kodak to give it more punch, so Kodak might've used something out of their cookbooks that would fit. But why this Funsaver 800 is so much worse than the other two - I have no idea (unless it *has* less layers to save costs and discourage people to just buy the disposable cameras and take the film off for re-use in better cameras ;-)).

I worked in camera shops when disposabule cameras first came out. It took us about five mins to figure out how to remove the film safely and without damage and then reload it with new film so you could have any film you wanted in it. After that we started daisy chaining the flash capacitors together and playing rather dubious games of dare. It was a simpler time and you had to make your wn entertainment! I should add don't try this at home kids.

sorry to say this but nice armpit hair...anyway nice photos love em and I am getting into film cameras needing this information i thank you so i am sorry for pointing put the armpit haor but anyway toodles

I've been saying it for decades but because I'm a no one on the internet, no one pays me any attention.... Having worked a several camera shops for many years the one thing I learned from the both Kodak and Fuji reps was that "pro" film is nothing more than aged "consumer" film. And since 2007, I have only purchased so called cheap film and let it expire in the fridge. To this day, I personally, have not seen a huge difference between a Portra and an UltraMax and have never had the need to spend extra money on pro film for my wedding clients.

Late to comment, but great photos as always! I am a big fan of Lomo 800 so glad to see it holds up well against the industry standard Portra. As others have said, you can stick the paper backing from 120 onto the roll of 35 to save yourself the horror of wasting so much film haha (I think shooting in the 220 back supposedly gets you most of the roll?). I think a medium format camera would go well with your kind of studio work. Doesn't have to be a pricey hassy, maybe something like a solid 6x4.5 SLR (Mamiya, Pentax, Bronica etc) would work great.

If you really want to know the (possible) differences in color film, you should print them manually on RA-4 paper. If scanned, the systems will always interpret the picture automatically in many ways. There is no such thing as unedited scan.

I can't speak to Kodak disposable cameras, but I've taken apart a few disposable Fujifilm cameras, and you absolutely do have to damage them to open them up. Just getting to the roll is not too destructive, but you still have to bend back a plastic seam that will stay open unless you press it back down, and it's clear that it won't survive being bent back and forth too many times before it breaks. Reloading it is another matter entirely. You can take it apart without doing too much more damage, though you will have to bend back a couple more seams and destroy a plastic weld on the back. The issue is trying to get all the pieces back together in a dark room/bag where you can't see anything, on top of resealing any light leaks caused by the damage done during disassembly. It definitely can be done, but it's not nearly worth the effort when you can spend a little bit more on a camera that's designed to be reloaded in the field.

So… I can’t believe that disposable cameras don’t exist. I can’t handle this. The wastage is unreal.

I think it's complicated to DEVELOP an emulsion, but not necessarily to just keep making it. If it was worthwhile back in the day, they could keep going due to momentum. Doesn't have any bearing on it being true or not, just that it doesn't seem "far fetched" to me up front.

Bummed to not see Aurora 800! Now I’m even more curious as to what it could be

Yvonne, this was a blast! I love how you tell stories here, can’t wait to see the next one. 💪💪💪

I think kodak is instead of throwing out there used portra chemicals there recycling the dirty used chemicals and turning it into funsaver film.

The funsaver shots are noticeably less sharp than the rest, but I didn't hear you mention it. Is the grain just coarser leading to less sharpness in the color dyes, or maybe there was some focusing issue when scanning (due to the thinner base)? There's also a light leak in the picture at 10:43 - was that the camera's fault? Maybe it was not well pressed against the backplate? I thought lomo 800 was the same thing as what's in the disposable cameras (gold 800 / ultramax 800, whatever you want to call it), but these comparison pics have the funsaver standing out as being much more different to lomo than lomo to portra. So I have even more questions now than before the video!

Lomo 800 is definitely multiple different stocks depending on when/where you buy it.

I dont understand why you'd go to such lengths yet not use a grey card on at oeast one scene

Thanks for doing this comparison! Definitely not cheap or easy lol. But it was super interesting getting to see how the three Kodak films compare... maybe most interesting to me was the funsaver, as I always put down the 'quality' and 'aesthetic' differences to the plastic lens, but the film itself clearly has a lot to do with that. And just good to know the cheaper Lomo is still an awesome alternative to Portra

Any camera is a disposable if you just throw it away 😀 also personal preference but porta is a little overrated, Fuji has the good stuff for me

Any chance funsaver is ultra max ran at 800?

I actually prefer Fuji 400 the most

I didn't see that coming! I was sure they'd be all the same! Nice detective work🤗❤️

After scanning rollls myself and comparing to how the same rolls were scanned by a lab, I can't take the comparison offered here seriously. There are huge differences in how labs deliver scans, and huge differences in how you do scans. The way the sausage is made is not pretty, and it turns out most of the film 'look' is how you do it in post after scanning. Rarely does the raw unedited tiff scan look good, and most labs have a preset when they send to customers, otherwise most customers would be angry at the flat scans they'll be getting.

I thoroughly enjoy watching your videos, for the content, your lively presentation skills, and for your on-onscreen persona.

That is not a test by comparing in using different cameras, Ok,in using favorite model as you mention that is not a real test OK, a real test is adding a Macbeth Color Checker, or a Kodak Color & B/W Step wedge to compare the color profiles, and the Exposure Latitude of all the 800 film that is being mention. Also when using different lenses in which it is shown on this video will Give You A Different Look, Japan, and German Optics will give you a Different Look. A Disposable Camera only has One Shutter Speed, and one F/Stop, in which the film that are inside these cameras as the film was made to have a WIDE Range Exposure Latitude. And the Lomography800 film is Kodak Film as repackage Kodak Ektapress or Ultra color800 film that has a wide exposure latitude that was use in the Press media division before digital cameras made the scene... And Finally one word for you - DeCalf Please... Photography is a serious media as film photography is on comeback since how much can they place a digital camera with Steroids in the software inside the camera... Keep it Simple....

Great experiment and lovely results. I honestly don't lean towards 800-speed colour films, although Aurora does interest me. As for geeking out about cameras, it is so true! I have folk talk to me more when I'm out with my Rolleiflex or an Ikonta folder.

I really love these deep dive videos, thankies Yvonne. 💜 Also interesting results, I guess I’ll have to put Lomo Color Negative on my shopping list. Re: scanning I found getting an old Tamron SP 90 AF for F mount and putting it on my Zf was the way to go for me. Cheap and way, way faster than any flatbed and very good results, so I won‘t order analog prints from the lab anymore. (I can send you the link to a roll of NC500 I recently shot and digitised, I have decided I adore that film by the way. Side note, have you made a Patreon yet? 😬 Buy me a coffee does not work that well for me.)

Love taking photos at the Jack Chow building! Great work, btw!

It’s great that the Lomo 800 is basically on par with Portra 800! Meanwhile, the Funsaver film looks like a bad batch of Portra that would have otherwise been thrown out. Guess when a Portra film doesn’t pass QA, it goes into a disposable camera … The Fuji is weird; in a few shots I actually like it the most, but in several it looked the worst to me. Feels a bit inconsistent?

excuse me, but i'm not going to comment on your video. thank you

My family didn't have much money when I was a kid, so I bought disposable cameras and always reloaded them (until they wore out) with new film to save money. I'm glad someone else has discovered the joy of reloading disposable cameras!

Subscribed!

I always kind of assumed that “disposable cameras” would find their way back to the manufacturers who would then refurbish and reload them and sell as new again. They seem like too much of a resource to just throw away

great video. thx

Anyone know if taping a leader onto the roll of 35 to waste less frames in a medium format camera could cause issues? Love the results!

I always thought fun saver film was a version of Gold. Mainly because I remember it being labeled Gold back in the day and package coloring screams gold as well

1:26

Wow Yvonne, what a grand collaboration, thank you and everyone involved for this interesting experiment!

I'm super confused by the data sheet thing ... though I'm glad you can see the difference between the Lomo/Kodak/Aurora 800 and Portra 800. I generally consider Portra 800 to be a true 400 ISO film, and I tend to like it more at that rating. As far as the effect the base has: I THINK Lomo 100 and Gold 200 are the same. The interesting part here (unless they've had to change stocks) is that Lomo 100 has a much thicker base than Gold 200 120 does. I've shot Lomo 100 and Gold 120 together at the same time once, and the colors seemed indistinguishable. However, the heaviness of the base might be a difference maker between the two ... Conspiracies abound!

you coul have loaded the films in a darkroom or a bag and not waste frames

Lomo CN is an impressive film.

I have heard once that a disposable camera used to be called recyclable cameras, and I saw a video of a whole disassembly line that could take apart these cameras component by component without breaking any of it. This in order to completely reuse them in the future. Unfortunately I can't find the video anymore.

Interesting 🤔

Great video!!

Intersting video!

Haarige Angelegenheit 😢