Polaroid Lovers Try To Revive Its Instant Film

Maximum Prophet nods a NY Times piece on a Dutch group living the retro dream: they are trying to bring back Polaroid film. This group has the machinery to make the film packs, but needs to recreate the chemicals. Polaroid Inc. stopping making the specialized chemicals years ago, after having stockpiled what they would need for their last production runs. "They want to recast an outdated production process in an abandoned Polaroid factory for an age that has fallen for digital pictures because they think people still have room in their hearts for retro photography that eschews airbrushing or Photoshop. 'This project is about building a very interesting business to last for at least another decade,' said Florian Kaps, the Austrian entrepreneur behind the effort [in Enschede, The Netherlands]. 'It is about the importance of analog aspects in a more and more digital world. ... If everyone runs in one direction [i.e. digital photography], it creates a niche market in the other.'"

Comments

Huh?

[b laurienti]

Digital is no good to take a picture of first post anymore?

They're called digital cameras

[Admodieus]

Part of the advantage of instant film was being able to see how the picture was that instant, thus giving you the ability to retake the picture if you weren't satisfied. Digital cameras, with their screens and additional features, do the same job but do it even better. There's no need for instant film anymore.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had to choose how I wanted to present photographic evidence, I'd take a polaroid. I've seen many of them in my time, but have never been able to tell a fake one by the pixels.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[The Grim Reefer2]

Not to mention that the quality of a Polaroid was awful at best and if you did get a great shot it's not like it was trivial to make copies of it or enlarge it. A scanner would certainly make it possible to make copies now, but that kind of defeats choosing it over a digital camera, and the enlarging of the image still applies due to the image quality.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Admodieus]

But that's not the niche they're going for. They are looking for the people whose heartstrings they can tug on in order to sell these things. They're not even thinking about law enforcement and its applications, even though your point is valid.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[stonecutter2]

A piece of instant film could be handed directly over to a friend or relative without further hassle. Digital cameras still require you to take the time to get to a computer and do something with the picture via the memory card or the camera itself. Instant sharing isn't as simple or direct as snapping the picture and handing it to someone, like with a Polaroid. Although being able to see if it was a "bad picture" was also handy, I think the coolest thing was the instant gratification factor that digital cameras still don't quite possess.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Jmanamj]

also, keep in mind that you may need a physical photograph that is instantly available in case you need to write something important on it that you might forget because you have a memory condition.

Did i tell you about my memory condition?

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get a digital polaroid...
http://www.polaroid.com/CES/ProductDetail.jsp?folder_id=2534374302037099&prod_code=PG009

Re:They're called digital cameras

[alvinrod]

There's no need for horse-drawn carriages either, given that cars are a quicker and more energy efficient means of conveyance, but there are always a few hapless romantics who like to see the world as it once was.

As long as there's a demand for something, no matter how silly it might seem, someone will supply it.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[twidarkling]

Do you also have many tattoos, telling you about important information?

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Yvan256]

So what you're saying is that we need built-in printer (whatever the printer type) as the next feature of digital cameras?

That would be interesting, even if it's a niche market.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[harryandthehenderson]

Welcome to the world of 8 years ago!

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Razalhague]

Already exists.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[gEvil (beta)]

Did i tell you about my memory condition?

I'm calling bullshit on that one. How'd you remember your login/password here? Or do you have it tattooed on you somewhere? (Not very good for security IMNSHO.)

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Brigadier]

true, however digital photography is a.) modifiable (sometimes you don't want this) 2.) Digital photography still requires processing. If I'm on say a job site with a client and wish to document a condition I can take two pictures and both parties can leave with a hard copy. Digital cannot accomplish this.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[smd75]

You couldnt be more wrong. There are still photographers who use film because they get better quality from film than most digital cameras. The only cameras that can begin to compete with film as far as resolution and quality are digital backs that cost upwards of $25,000. If you already have a large format camera and a studio set up for film, there isn't much point to changing because the costs associated with transitioning. Many studios are now digital, and yes it is simple to use, but not simple to transition to. Megapixels dont mean anything. You can have large number of megapixels in a point and shoot, but it still doesnt come near a pro-amerature / pro SLR as far as quality. I learned more about photography shooting film than I did with a digital. Shoot it once, shoot it right. Ive become lazy with digital photography and can shoot multiples blowing away my memory card and getting only a couple shots. There is still a need for film, and Im part of that trend. I hope I can still get film for my cameras for my wedding

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Did i tell you about my memory condition?

My grandfather was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and cancer. Upon receiving this news he said "Well, at least it's not cancer!"

Re:They're called digital cameras

[oldspewey]

instantly available in case you need to write something important on it

My digicam has a voice memo feature - I can annotate a photo any time after taking it.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Shakrai]

There's no need for horse-drawn carriages either, given that cars are a quicker and more energy efficient means of conveyance

How is hauling >1,000 pounds of steel with an engine that has a thermal efficiency rating of <50% more energy efficient than a lightweight carriage drawn by an animal?

Re:They're called digital cameras

[jrothwell97]

But the flipside of that is you can take as many duff shots as you want, and you'll never waste any paper. Digital photos are also easier to store than those in paper form.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Psyborgue]

The problem is the cheap camera, not the film or process. You can get polaroid backs for all sorts of cameras which provide pretty high quality prints. Consider that the negative is the printing surface, so there is no enlargment.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[badasscat]

I'm calling bullshit on that one. How'd you remember your login/password here? Or do you have it tattooed on you somewhere? (Not very good for security IMNSHO.)

Someone needs to watch more movies.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[The GIS Guy]

I've got it. They could make it so you have to shake the camera before the image appears on the screen.Instant modern day Polaroid!

Re:They're called digital cameras

[badasscat]

My digicam has a voice memo feature - I can annotate a photo any time after taking it.

Well now, that wouldn't be very cinematic, would it?

Sheesh, there are other movies out there besides Star Trek - you'd think *someone* else here would have gotten the reference.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Razalhague]

You know, I haven't logged in since I created the account.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[RandoX]

He could have some kind of memento to remind him.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[PrescriptionWarning]

your equation would be missing the top speed and longevity portion of efficiency. Being able to travel 150 miles to the beach and back in the same day would probably not be possible and/or kill the horse from exhaustion.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[oldspewey]

*slaps forehead*

Now I get it ... that was a classic movie.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Yvan256]

Good, then all I need is duct tape!

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Except with Polaroid you immediately had a tangible copy you could give someone.

Also you could muck with original, distorting the picture before it hardened, or using the peal off back which also retained the image.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[badboy_tw2002]

There are multiple meanings of "efficient". If I needed to take a couple tons of steel 1000 miles through a barren desert I'd go with the truck with some diesel canisters over the team of horses and extra horses to carry what the horses are eating.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, aren't they spending millions of dollars trying to develop a vehicle that runs on fuel derived from grass (e.g. switchgrass)? Maybe someone should tell them about horses.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Abreu]

Pay for the stables and the feed for a couple of horses and then talk about "efficiency"

Re:They're called digital cameras

[onionlee]

no. polaroids are artsy.

here come the hipsters!

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Hijacked Public]

What sort of photography job do you envision doing at some site with some client, where you are using Polariod instant film and camera?

Re:They're called digital cameras

[vlm]

How is hauling >1,000 pounds of steel with an engine that has a thermal efficiency rating of

The fuel for the horse, and the "exhaust", is transported with a 10,000 pound steel truck with a nice low thermal efficiency.

Muscle is not terribly efficient, far worse than modern engines, and the horse does not have an on/off switch... He/She uses food and water 24x7 never dropping below "idle".

Also you'd be shocked at the fossil fuel consumption to grow food. Generally about ten calories of oil per calorie of food consumed. Admittedly animal feed is somewhat less processed, but I'd be surprised if less than five calories of crude oil is used to product one calorie of animal feed.

I am quite certain my car uses less crude oil than a team of horses.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[hedwards]

true, however digital photography is a.) modifiable (sometimes you don't want this)

Digital definitely can do that, the fact that you haven't run across the proper set up for that is not the same thing as the archaic practice being better.

Canon for one makes a system that demonstrates that it hasn't been modified. You can get a portable printer which prints the pictures out. But for all intents and purposes the fetish for a physical copy is well above and beyond what is needed for legal purposes. You can just sign the original on the spot and hand out copies to all that need it. On top of that it's far easier to archive for possible future need.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[jenn_13]

Memento was awesome! :)

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't just heartstrings, there are a number of artists that use Polaroids for various reasons, much like people use Holgas, or Lomos, or pinhole cameras, and so on.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[sunderland56]

With a digital camera, of course, you get to see a low-resolution downsized image using the wrong color space.

If people still want the "Instant print" ability, it would be trivial to produce a digital camera with a small photo printer built in. All the advantages of digital (reprints, storage, enlargements) *plus* the advantages of an on-location instant paper print.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[gEvil (beta)]

Yeah, cos my mentioning that he might have it tattooed on him indicates that I have no understanding of the joke here....

Re:They're called digital cameras

[deepsight]

I have one about certain cake being a lie.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[FesterDaFelcher]

When you are going from New York to California. You have died of dysentery. :)

Re:They're called digital cameras

[hardburn]

What's the energy efficiency of the horse's food vs work output? Even a sleeping horse consumes energy just to maintain body temperature. At most, a car will trickle a bit off the battery for a few things.

How do you make the food for the horse? How do you take care of the droppings they leave behind?

Even including climate change, fossil fuels beat animals by a lot.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[mugnyte]

    Scaling up the infrastructure, the issues (like animal-borne diseases and excrement in the streets) are completely different (from, say, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and petroleum products in the waste stream).

    Also, idle-time maintenance of automotive tech is much lower than animal-based systems.

    Efficiency competed within both realms for many years. Animals lost for many reasons, most of them fairly.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[FesterDaFelcher]

If I'm on say a job site with a client and wish to document a condition I can take two pictures and both parties can leave with a hard copy. Digital cannot accomplish this.

My cell phone can accomplish this via Pogo http://www.polaroid.com/CES/ProductDetail.jsp?folder_id=2534374302037098&prod_code=PG001, and I can send copies to the home office, the client, 7 contractors to get bids, and tweet it at the same time.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[hedwards]

That is not true. Serious photographers don't generally suggests that digital has the properties you're suggesting unless they're Luddites.

Trust me on this, I've shot with film, slide film and digital. Digital is by far the hardest of those to work with. You have to get it right the first time, you get similar dynamic range to slide film, but the range in each channel varies with typically the red or magenta blowing out earlier. Good luck trying to preserve the detail if you're shooting something that's rusty in the sun without losing the shadows completely or blowing the highlights all to hell.

Sure you get a teensy bit of leeway with digital and raw on white balance, but that's about it, if you didn't get the exposure right you're not any better off than you were with film. And as I mentioned already, it's harder to get the right exposure with digital. And at any rate it's not really any more than you could get with dark room techniques. Assuming that you've got the money for a proper darkroom.

Or to put it another way, if that's the way that you treat digital, then no wonder you're not getting the kind of results that you were getting out of film. I personally treat digital exactly the same way that I treat film, and I get much better results than I otherwise get. Blaming the equipment for sloth and ignorance is really not the way to get good results.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[JSBiff]

"true, however digital photography is a.) modifiable (sometimes you don't want this) 2.) Digital photography still requires processing."

For point a), if you are worried about that, we have cryptographic signing systems; For point b) - plan ahead, and you can easily give the other party a copy on a CD, SD card, USB flash drive, etc. Or even, maybe, print a hard copy (I realize you won't always have access to a printer at a job site, but it is possible; for example, most construction projects have a little trailer to serve as an office for the engineer, foreman, and the client, which could be equipped with an inkjet printer). Heck, I've even seen little 'travel' printers you could probably setup on the seat of your car/truck/SUV and plug into the cigarette lighter socket (or, as it should probably be called nowadays, the accessories socket).

Still, I say more power to these people trying to preserve a little slice of history. If people wish to use polaroids, that's there business. In the end though, IIRC, those polaroid photos could get pretty expensive pretty quick. Which, I think, was one of the huge drivers to move people to digital - while you can certainly get digital cameras that cost $1000+, you can also get a halfway decent camera for $100, and you only have to pay for photos you actually print. My parents have, probably 1000 digital photos they've taken with the camera we got them a few years back (honestly, they should probably delete some of them, but oh well, SD cards are cheap), which probably would have cost them hundreds of dollars on polaroid or 35mm. They only really have to pay for the photos they actually print though, which is only a small handful.

Plus, if the print doesn't hold up as well as traditional photos, it's easy to print a new copy in a few years (something harder to do with a polaroid, though certainly possible).

Re:They're called digital cameras

[LWATCDR]

Not really. The LCD is much smaller and lacks the resolution of the full sized picture.
The advantage of Digital is cost. You might as well take ten pictures and throw out nine. Also digital just doesn't have the same quality of image. But then I am not going to run out and buy this film. If there are enough people to want it then great for them. I just hate to see Mr. Land's name fade from the scene.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Shakrai]

your equation would be missing the top speed and longevity portion of efficiency

No, my equation was in response to the remark that a car is more energy efficient than a horse drawn carriage. Obviously the car has many advantages over the carriage. I don't think you can claim that energy efficiency is one of them.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Sponge Bath]

Not to mention the shovel required to clean up the horse's carbon output.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[flahwho]

Ill give you cars are "NOT energy efficent" but they're definately faster.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

how expensive is it to raise the horse and keep it from dying over the 5-10 year period that you'd own the car? Maybe the resale value was higher w/ the horse? How much is a new horse vs a new car?

Re:They're called digital cameras

[nine-times]

Well more to the point, I don't think the digital/analog thing should really matter very much. People make a bit deal about, "But I don't like digital things! I want polaroid cameras and vinyl records! Having old technology makes me awesome!"

But whatever. Lots of polaroid cameras were kind of shitty and lots of the pictures came out badly. The only real advantage was that you could have a physical copy of the photo pretty much immediately. Most of the time, you didn't really need that, but it was fun and occasionally handy.

These days, you can get very small cameras and very small portable printers. If you want to replace the polaroid camera, you just need to figure out how to mount the portable printer on the digital camera, and make the whole package as small and light-weight and fast-printing as a polaroid. But then, that's probably still a niche market, because most people are just as happy to not have to carry around a small inkjet printer attached to their camera.

Anyway, I think it's mostly that people like the nostalgia of the big white boarder on the bottom, scribbled on with a sharpie pen while waiting for the picture to fade into being. Give it a couple decades, and it will be like people who like the nostalgia of monocles and tuxedos with tails.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[osu-neko]

There's no need for instant film anymore.

Okay, how did Captain Obvious here get modded as "insightful"?

There's no NEED for most of the things we buy. Things live on because people like and enjoy them, not because there's any need. Since the advent of modern firearms, there's no need for bows and arrows, and yet bow hunting remains a popular sport.

Although some hunt to support themselves, many hunt for sport. Although some people making a living as photographers, for many, photography is a hobby. Arguing that there's no need for Polaroids is like arguing there's no need for bows. It's absolutely true, and makes it clear just how clueless the person making the statement is, how badly they've missed the point.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[vlm]

What sort of photography job do you envision doing at some site with some client, where you are using Polariod instant film and camera?

Insurance claims agent. Industrial/Railroad/Aircraft accident investigator. Pretty much any job title containing the word "inspector".

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever cared for a horse?

Go down to a stable, see how much work it involves.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[ImTheDarkcyde]

Maybe I'm being a little arty, but what I like so much about my polaroid and 35mm cameras is the limited amount of pictures I can take. Not only can I take a picture whenever I want (without having to wait for my digicam to boot up and focus), I have to decide whether it's worth one of my 10 polaroids per 15 dollar pack. I'll take my digicam to a tourist spot, sure, but if I'm going to the park I'm packing analog.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[NewWorldDan]

That's exactly the point. Polaroid isn't making film anymore because there is no demand for it. As a courtesy to their customers, they kept production up long after it ceased to be profitable. Horse-drawn carriages work because, while demand is small, service can be provided on a small scale. Polaroid film can't readily be made by some guy in his basement. Even if this group can get started making the film for Polaroids, demand will likely only go down, and efficiancy will never go up. They're going to find out that Polaroid stopped making this film for a reason.

But, it's not my money, and if they want to throw theirs out the window, that's not my problem.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

I have one about certain cake being a lie.

Had you finished the game, you would know that the cake is no lie.
Don't believe everything you read online.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it takes 30min to go 30 miles, instead of 2 days.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[perryizgr8]

How'd you remember your login/password here?

cookies.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[moxley]

I know one particular type of situation where having polaroid stle instant snaps is perferable to a lot of people over digital cameras.

That particular situation is when you have an event, item, or situation which you wish to have pictures of, but which is way too sensitive to allow to pictures to get out or get on the internet - one such situation would be nude or explicit photos of taken by someone you don't trust enough to leave with negatives or a digital photograph...

Even since digital cameras became commonplace I thought that it was homemade porn snaps that was keeping polaroid's instant camera division afloat actually.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[mattmacf]

I don't think anybody really understands the reason Polaroid is still a popular medium. I'll give you a hint, it's got nothing to do with any of the bloody technical aspects of the film. It's not about megapixels or instant gratification. More than anything, Polaroids have a quirkiness and charm to them that isn't reproduced by anything else.

I'm a hobbyist photographer and even though most of my gear is digital, there's something to be said for some of the old school methods. Every once in a while I'll go out on a nice day and run a roll or two of slide film through my camera. Generally I'll take just one prime lens out for the afternoon and I won't finish until I'm out of film. Send the film out for development, wait several days, and get back about 98% crap. There's no cloning, airbrushing, leveling or curving. The exposure has to be spot on or it'll turn our too dark to see through or virtually transparent. Why do I do this? The one or two keepers you do get are something special. The tonal range, the color saturation: there's nothing digital that can compete.

Polaroids are even neater. Sure you can get functionally the same thing with any consumer point and shoot digital camera (take picture, check LCD, print later), but in comparison, the images you get can only be described as bland and mechanical. Not to mention watching your picture develop almost magically as you shake it. It's a great date idea too if you can find the equipment. Unfortunately, the film is now prohibitively expensive for shooting casually.

There are still enthusiasts who scour ebay only for long-expired Polaroids because of the unique color shifts that they give. There's also unexpired film still selling on ebay for well over $1/exposure. That's for a 3" square image that's got virtually no redeeming technical qualities to it. Again, there's NOTHING digital that compares.

It may sound hokey, but TFA puts it pretty bluntly:

âoeIt used to be something you use for a lighting test,â Ms. Bukowska said. âoeNow it is the art itself.â

Re:They're called digital cameras

[vlm]

The advantage of Digital is cost. You might as well take ten pictures and throw out nine.

I've done "serious" amateur photography, film and digital. "serious" as in a dedicated darkroom for film and semi-pro (expensive) digital gear, etc.

The disadvantage of digital is training/learning. Each picture is "free", so relax, right? You end up leisurely taking ten pictures, all poorly framed, bad perspective, poorly timed, wrong aperture/FoV/shutter speed tradeoff, shakey cam holding technique, and poorly lit, and end up throwing out all ten, thus having no usable picture at all... vs the film guy whom feels his wallet lighten each time he clicks, so he tries very hard and gets, perhaps, three Great pics out of every five expensive snaps.

The digital guy took more "Free" pics (unfortunately worth every penny), but the film guy took more "Great" pics. In the end the film guy comes out ahead with more "Great" pics and learns more.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[The_mad_linguist]

Do you know the thermal efficiency of a horse?

It's not that good. And you have to keep the engine idling for a full 24 hours each day.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[dicobalt]

Because it only takes 30min to go 30 miles, instead of 2 days?

Re:They're called digital cameras

[psnyder]

Good luck trying to preserve the detail if you're shooting something that's rusty in the sun without losing the shadows completely or blowing the highlights all to hell.

I met a photographer at a fair who was selling a digital photograph of a covered bridge. He explained to me that he took 2 photographs at different exposures: 1 to get the detail of the dark inside portion, and another to get the rest of the scenery. Then he photoshopped them together.

IANAPhotographer but I'd imagine you could use a similar technique as long as the shadows on your rusty thing in the sun aren't moving.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[moon3]

Polaroid is about to have nice framed and colored picture in hand instantly, the photo material is unique and very nice, you do not have to use elaborate printers or sending photos to photo shops etc. Something that digital cameras lack to deliver. Even the format of the paper frame and photo is very well thought out.

It is perfect for taking family photos that people can carry out right out from the event. There is not a digital camera alternative in the market for this, at least that I know about. Even if there is one, I doubt it would have the overall feel and appeal of the Polaroid photo.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[DougWebb]

A piece of instant film could be handed directly over to a friend or relative without further hassle. Digital cameras still require you to take the time to get to a computer and do something with the picture via the memory card or the camera itself. Instant sharing isn't as simple or direct as snapping the picture and handing it to someone, like with a Polaroid.

If you use the camera in your cellphone, you can email the picture to your friend, and they can receive it on their cellphone moments later. That's pretty instant, and not only have you shared the picture, you've made an exact duplicate of it so you can both have it. Can't do that with a Polaroid.

What we need are either better quality cameras built into cellphones, or broadband cellphone chips built into digital cameras. The latter is a more viable option; good cameras are too bulky to be reasonable cellphones, while the cellphone electronics can be easily fit into a decent camera.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's so much harder for, say.... an aging relative to continue using an established tech that gives instant and physical results than to try to learn something that might be "hard" for them to really comprehend or get used to.

What if they like the way the picture is automatically in their hands without having to worry about plugging into the computer, firing up that "windows vista" and worry about "getting a virus" or some other nonsense.

There is enough value in the tech to make it worthwhile for a certain group of people. Old does not equal worthless, jackass.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Faerunner]

Proper car maintenance (cleaning, waxing, keeping the tires filled to the optimum pressure, oil changes, alignments, new brakes.... should I go on?) is also a lot of work. The difference is that most people care for their own horses, and simply ignore their cars (or pay someone else to do it).

Re:They're called digital cameras

[PitaBred]

"Ive become lazy with digital photography and can shoot multiples blowing away my memory card and getting only a couple shots."

Seems like that's the problem. A poor craftsman blames his tools. You can do great or mediocre things with any tools. If you can take a great shot with film, you can do the exact same thing with a good digital SLR to the extent of my experience. The only thing that film might add is more resolution, but that's only readily apparent if you blow pictures up past A0 or so size. And even then, 35mm film resolves to roughly 10-20 megapixels. All current SLR's are there or above.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[ColdWetDog]

The digital guy took more "Free" pics (unfortunately worth every penny), but the film guy took more "Great" pics. In the end the film guy comes out ahead with more "Great" pics and learns more.

Bah. While you CAN do that digitally (and lots of people do - just look at the various photography sites on the web), digital is the best learning system for picture quality yet. Near instant feedback. Automatic metadata capture (remember the little notebook we all used writing down exposures, f stops and all?). The ability to "get creative" without breaking the bank, realizing that most of the time you won't get what you're looking for.

Since going digital about 5 years ago, I'm a much better photographer than my old slide days.

And my fingers don't smell funny all of the time.

Shot discipline is just one thing you have to learn with digital cameras. Now that I have a couple hundred thousand exposures under my belt, I don't shoot nearly as much as I used to - I know what works and what doesn't. But I never would have gotten there with film. It was just too slow and expensive.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[DrgnDancer]

What if we make ethanol from the grass the horse would have eaten and use it to power a very efficient car? I think we should do some experiments here.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[bcat24]

Wow, that's the first meta-joke I've read in quite a while that's actually funny. Good job!

Re:They're called digital cameras

[bcat24]

Not to mention that the quality of a Polaroid was awful at best and if you did get a great shot it's not like it was trivial to make copies of it or enlarge it.

You say that like it's a bad thing. *Sigh*

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Merc248]

Yeah there is.

Ever look at a hipster's Facebook page? :)

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, you're missing a very important aspect.

A friend and I went to see the band Body Count when they came to town. We showed up early in hopes of meeting the band and as luck would have it, we met everyone but Ice-T who was out looking for strippers for the show(I love heavy metal shows). Anyway, the band had troubles outta some of their lights and we helped them fix it and then we asked if we could get our pictures taken with the band and they agreed to do that(and a lot more actually).

So my friend pulled out his polaroid and we got our pics taken with the band AND they autographed the pics for us.

You simply can NOT get that with a digital camera. Sure you could print it but then you have to pack a printer around with you everywhere, etc. This only required that we buy the film and insert it into the camera. Camera cost all of $10 at a flea market or something.

There's also a magic trick that involves a polaroid that also cannot be performed with either a regular camera or digital.

That said, Fuji Film has ALREADY revived the instant film market a few months ago I discovered while at a camera shop so this is OLD, OLD news.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[tech_fixer]

Tattooed cookies?

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Scared Rabbit]

Not to mention the fact that there were types of Polaroid film that produced a negative in addition to the positive print. I don't know if they made a color version, but we played around with the B&W film a bit in my photo classes. It certainly made using the 4x5 camera a lot more practical. Here's some information on the film wikipedia style: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_type_55

Re:They're called digital cameras

[fizzup]

As it happens, the annual cost of keeping a horse is broadly similar to the annual cost of keeping a car - somewhere in the neighborhood of US$7,000 per year. Horses are probably a little less expensive, but not that much. Here are a couple of links. Horse: http://www.extension.org/faq/47, Car: http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=1219206

Re:They're called digital cameras

[LordByronStyrofoam]

What smd75 is talking about (but doesn't convey well) is the depth of the image. Early digital was strictly 8-bits per pixel, and a very small gamut. RAW gives us 12 to 14 bits of depth per pixel. In cantrast, my 4x5 Provia transparencies, wet-scanned on a drum scanner, give me 16-bits of depth per color channel per pixel: 48 bits per pixel. This lets me get to the detail in zone 2 that's locked up in black on a digital image. Regarding megapixels, my 4"x5" analog sensor (film) is able to give me the equivalent of about 130 megapixels, and the sensor costs me about $2.25 a sheet. For comparison, Leaf is selling a 56megapixel camera back for medium format for only $33,000.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay for the stables and the feed for a couple of horses and then talk about "efficiency"

I'm not entirely convinced that this still wouldn't work out as cheaper than the cost of petrol now.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, when was the last time your car was smart enough not to let you run into a wall? Or to know you want to jump over a small wall, and then do so without collision?

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Eil]

Digital cameras still require you to take the time to get to a computer and do something with the picture via the memory card or the camera itself.

I'm actually rather surprised that nobody (especially Polaroid of all companies) has even attempted a digital camera with tiny printer built-in and enough film for a dozen photos. For sure, you wouldn't fit one into an iPhone, but the resulting contraption could be about the same size or smaller than one of the old clunky Polaroid cameras.

Instant sharing isn't as simple or direct as snapping the picture and handing it to someone, like with a Polaroid.

Well, it could also be argued that physical photos themselves are rapidly becoming a thing of the past. My wife and I are in the process of scanning and archiving all the family photos we can find (some over a century old) because we know we can preserve, distribute, and annotate them digitally a lot more reliably than the physical originals.

What's missing in the present is a simple and fool-proof way to share photos no matter where you are. If I'm with a group of friends and somebody takes a nice photo, I can ask them for their memory card and stick it into my phone or laptop and make a copy, but that still requires a fair amount of hassle and technical know-how. The SD cards that can wirelessly upload their contents to the web automatically are a nice step in the right direction. But instant photo sharing won't be truly fool-proof until we have ubiquitous cheap wireless Internet access everywhere.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[confused one]

Not necessarily true. Polaroid stopped making the film because it made sense for them to stop making film. If they're trying to compete with digital cameras, Polaroid instant film will lose. If they're trying to provide supplies for a niche product, where the consumer might be willing to pay a higher price, then it might be profitable. Maybe not for Polaroid, because, again, it tried to work on large scales and compete with other formats like digital and 35mm; but, perhaps for a smaller vender working in a hobbyist market, it will work. Oh, and by the way, I can mix this kind of stuff up in my workshop... It's just chemistry.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[OrigamiMarie]

Faster travel time.

Less street cleaning.

The fuel is more energy-dense.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Casual Maritime]

What does waxing have to do with "proper" car maintenance? Additionally, the amount of time spent doing essential maintenance to a car probably comes out to less than an hour a week even if you do everything yourself.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah and clean up the horse crap. Luddites do not mind crap. Luddites embrace crap for its ambiance. And polaroids are still crap even if they're digital.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[EddyGL]

You make cookies with your username and password in them? Where'd you buy the cookie cutter? What are they molasses cookies? I'm guessing this is so you can eat them in a hurry when the FBI/NSA/HLS is knocking on your door? Keep a cold glass of milk handy!

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

The other part of the advantage of instant film is the poor quality, the grain, the atmosphere of a shot. I've used to very expensive digital cameras, and some excellent lenses, and I'd reach for them every time I need a good picture. When I'm out taking pictures as a hobby, as a form of expression, then your far more likely to find me using a beat up old SLR, a 1920's portable bellows, or an old and camera. Perhaps not the most /. of sentiments, but they have more 'soul'. They just feel better to use.

It's like people who use IBM model M's, or drive classic cars. Perhaps they aren't the 'best' options, but they're the one's I choose to take.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[LWATCDR]

Hey bad pictures are bad pictures. I can see your point but it would seem to be a case of discipline.
This might be a good thing for people just starting. For every bad picture put a dime in a jar :) at the end of the year buy some new lenses or a good point and shoot camera :)

Re:They're called digital cameras

[drinkypoo]

Horses eat whether you ride them or not, cars just rot slowly if you don't maintain them. That's the real reason. Also, cars seldom panic and run down passersby without being told to do so.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[stonewallred]

Obviously you don't look a much amateur pr0n on the 'tubes. Digital has turned amateur pr0n into some type of frickin horror show with every dude with a fugly girlfriend into the next Larry Flint.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[drinkypoo]

Halfway decent digital cameras have voice annotation, allowing you to record an audio message for each image.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[zippthorne]

You're still hauling around 1,000 lbs of steel (and wood), without shock absorption, with a low efficiency engine that runs on extremely expensive fuel (compare the price of 1,000 kcal of oats to the price of 1,000 kcal of 87 octane gasoline.)

Just because the exhaust isn't hot doesn't mean that the engine is efficient. Also, in the typical configuration, the exhaust is routed right by the passenger compartment, and although less toxic (very low CO emissions), it's much less pleasant to smell.

And you get all that in a machine that can't simply be stored until you need it, and travels at a fifth the speed.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy fuck man, get with the times.

Your fantasy world of film and chemicals and inferior picture quality is long gone.

It's all about the CCDs and the LCDs now, baby.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[LandDolphin]

With digital you get someone who will take 100+ shots and with Film you get someoen who takes 10. If they both hsave the same skill, you have a much better chance of getting a good photo from the ditigal guy. Most of us are old enough to remembre the pre-digital days when you went ot a place liek Owen-Mills to get photos and you have ~5-10 to choose from and most of them were snapped when someone was not ready and you had to choose the best of the worst. Now, that is not the case as much. you get to choose from ~50 shots were people still were not ready.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

From a practical engineering stand point, you're probably right. From an artistic photography stand point, you are dead wrong. As an artist and graphic designer, I have seen some truly amazing things done with polaroids. The image quality has it's own unique feel and for most of us has a nostalgic connotation.

Also, transfer a Polaroid image to just about any surface through direct image transfer or emulsion transfer. Try that with your digital camera. Until a Photoshop filter can do that, Polaroid still has uses in certain niches.

Take a gander at what Polaroid can do that Photoshop can't:

http://www.luminarycreations.com
http://www.darrylasher.com/gallery-polaroids/index.html
http://www.andrewthomashunt.com/polaroid.html

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Ephemeriis]

A piece of instant film could be handed directly over to a friend or relative without further hassle. Digital cameras still require you to take the time to get to a computer and do something with the picture via the memory card or the camera itself. Instant sharing isn't as simple or direct as snapping the picture and handing it to someone, like with a Polaroid. Although being able to see if it was a "bad picture" was also handy, I think the coolest thing was the instant gratification factor that digital cameras still don't quite possess.

You can very easily hand them a memory card with no fuss at all. Or you can get a keychain-sized digital picture frame and hand that to them. Or you can get a small, portable printer and print out a copy of the photo. Or you can stop by just about any camera store, photo shop, or electronics department and print out a photo in minutes.

Not quite as immediate as a Polaroid... But obviously close enough to kill Polaroid.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to know how this "Zink" paper can possibly be "heat resistant." It seems to me that if you accidentally set a hot pan on it or leave it in the car in the summer, etc it will turn black just like monochrome thermal paper.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[jj00]

It prints on 2x3" full-color, sticky-back prints

I doubt anyone will take this camera seriously until it prints at least 4x6, non-sticky-back prints

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Horses aren't too efficient at turning food into work. Mostly because they require energy even when they aren't doing useful work. If i leave my car in the garage for a week, I don't need to keep 'feeding' it gasoline. But I do need to keep feeding a horse. And when I want my horse to do work, I need to give it more energy, above and beyond the 'maintenance' energy it needs to just survive.

Check out this book (if the link works) http://books.google.com/books?id=m4VM9__SKJMC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=horse+energy+efficiency&source=bl&ots=xGQxhMd_EJ&sig=NDA_LLgWCefdmgh2u2w5YvxvFS4&hl=en&ei=EVccSpdFzce2B7n_tN8M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#PPA10,M1

It doesn't talk too much about how 'efficient' a horse is turning plants into energy, but it does talk about comparisons between what a horse might need for 'maintenance' and what it's energy needs might be for different levels of work, as well as other energy uses such as reproduction and lactation. If you assume that a horse utilizes 100% of the energy in the food it eats with out any waste, you can get some comparative idea about how efficient a working horse is versus an 'idling' horse based on their figures. I guess it's up to you to work backwards off of the 100% assumption.

Tangential but related: horses pollute a lot more than cars do.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Jhon]

*A* horse may run about as much annually as *A* car (I doubt it in an urban environment), but horses don't travel at 60 mph. Maybe short bursts at 30 or 35... and there better be food and water available on the way.

Also, assuming society swaps horse for car, exactly WHO will pay for the street cleanup? Will this be like walking your dog? That's going to add a huge expense.

Moving to horses just isn't practical with society today. You'd need some pretty radical changes (and about a 5 billion person drop in the population) to be workable.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Razalhague]

I doubt anyone will take this camera seriously until it prints at least 4x6, non-sticky-back prints

Instant photos aren't really for people who take photography seriously. To get that size of photos the camera would need to be bigger than 4x6", and the kind of people it's aimed at simply wouldn't want a camera that big.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Hognoxious]

Or we could just drink it. We wouldn't know which was more efficient but we'd argue about it as if we did.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[profplump]

I agree the sticker bit is gimmicky, but the 600-series Polaroid images are only 3x3 -- reducing that to 2x3 is probably not going to ruin anyone's day.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[profplump]

You don't need Internet access to share -- you just need both devices to support the same connection type. It would be much easier to create a ubiquitous service locator protocol and standards for moving common file types between devices than to get ubiquitous Internet access.

In fact, we already have all those parts in Bluetooth (as part of the standard), or in Ethernet/WiFi (via ZeroConf and HTTP/FTP/SMB). Heck, many modern printers include all those functions for the very same purpose -- easy resource sharing. It's just that no one has spent much time making it happen for cameras. I'm guessing that's do at least in part to the wide availability and use of cellphone-based cameras at the lowed, which already include a transfer mechanism, and the vastly lower interest in instant-sharing capabilities on high-end gear.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Bertie]

I beg to differ.

My friend and I travelled around Ethiopia recently. We were tooled up with all manner of nice digital photographic equipment, and between us we got some utterly amazing photographs (which still don't come anywhere near to doing the place justice, but anyway).

And yet, at one point my friend turned to me and said "Y'know what? I wish I had a Polaroid with me". And I found myself agreeing. What on earth made her say that? Simple. We'd spent a day touring around the rock-hewn churches of Lalibela, and at the end of it our guide invited us to his home for a coffee ceremony.

There we sat in his mud house shooting the breeze most pleasantly for a couple of hours, and after a while we noticed that his family had no photos of themselves. Why would they? They haven't the money to spare on that sort of thing. So we offered to shoot some portraits, and they were delighted. But in order for the family to get them, we've had to post them once we got back home, care of the hotel we'd been staying at because there's basically no other way to get a letter to them. Who knows if they'll ever get them?

Whereas if we'd had a Polaroid, they'd have been sorted. Sure, the quality may have been utter shit, but sometimes that's not so important. Their children were growing up around them and they'd nothing to capture the moment with.

So yeah, Polaroids are old hat, but still, there's nothing quite like 'em.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[camperdave]

No, my equation was in response to the remark that a car is more energy efficient than a horse drawn carriage.

It all depends on the parameters under which you measure it, though. At 10-15 mph, a horse is probably much more efficient. But what about at 55mph? What about after travelling for 150 miles? Can a horse draw a carriage at speed for three hours? Besides, muscle is only 14-27% efficient, so it's likely that there are cars that are more efficient than a horse drawn carriage, even at horse attainable speeds and distances.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to cars that need no shelter (aka garage) or food (aka gasoline)?

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Grishnakh]

Unless you're driving a LOT of miles, $7k/year is a ridiculous amount to pay to keep up a car. Assuming you buy an older, small, used car and maintain it yourself, the cost per year should only be at most $2k/year. Good luck maintaining a horse for that much (and before you get on me about doing your own maintenance, to compare apples to apples, most people with horses feed and groom them themselves. Only really rich people can hire people to take care of their horses for them.).

In terms of actual dollars, I think owning and operating a car is easily far cheaper than any horse, unless you just have to have some expensive, brand-new BMW or something.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[the42ndfl00r]

Clearly my child, you are not a photographer, at least not a professional one with a decent amount of experience in the business of photography. Polaroids have far more advantage than your little mind can understand. When a photographer is shooting with 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 or 11x14 film all of which have a far superior quality level than any digital, no matter how expensive, on the market, that photographer does not want to waste the film by shooting it with the wrong exposure. This is where the polaroid film back came in. It would make a perfect cheap test shot to make sure you weren't wasting that $10 sheet of film. After developing the film and finding out it's not worth printing it's most likely far too late to re-shoot and you just lost your client and all the money you invested in your job. The cheap plastic cameras that is usually associated with polaroid were just fun, which can simply be replaced with digital. However, it's professional uses have been lost, because the fuji models of instant film have not been able to reproduce the quality of the polaroid. The cameras made the pictures bad. Find an SX-70 or use a 4x5 view camera with a film back and see how beautiful that shot can be. You, Mr. Admodieus haven't got a clue what you are talking about and shouldn't have spoken in the first place.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Polaroid type 55 and type 665, and possibly others, gave both a positive and a big honkin' negative suitable for big ass enlargement.

Some of us equipped with analog eyes and ears still have an affection for analog images and sounds.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Omestes]

The one thing all the "new = better" people are missing is the idea that Polaroids were fun, screw the professional money-making crap, screw the art crap as well, they were fun. I think most of us who are over a certain age have fun memories of using Polaroids. Taking stupid pictures of your stupid freinds doing stupid things, and having an instant, crappy photo with a really bad white balance to laugh at. I'm sure a ton of us have some old Polaroids sitting around in a drawer somewhere full of people we only vaguely remember from our youths.

Sure, I could now carry around (if I was young) a digital camera, and a photo printer, with the requisite cords, some ink, and a ream of paper. Or I suppose something the "new = better" people would prefer I take a picture of myself type with my webcam, then send it to MySpace/Facebook/what not, so all my digital friends can see me having a rocking digital time.

Sorry for getting snarky. I'm sick of the "new = better" crowd being so full of themselves. Sometime sentimentality is fine, I like albums, I sometimes even buy new ones. I don't think they sound better, I don't find them more convenient than my Ipod, but I like the large-format art on them, and the tactile experience. Yes, I'm sure digital is FAR more superior by objective metrics, but who cares?

But then again this is from someone who refuses to own a cell phone since no one has proven to me how they actually improve my life, or could make me a happier, better (not more productive, that doesn't matter one bit to me) person?

Hell, I used to love film cameras, just because it was hands on. I felt I had more involvement with my finished work. It was more work, meaning I had more invested. I like that better. You like easiness and efficiency better. Good. Welcome to the world of subjective judgments, we're all entitled our opinion. There is no reason to be a technology cheer-leader. This is /., the luddites here are still leagues more technophiliac than the general public.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[jonbryce]

You can take a pic using a camera phone, and send it by MMS. Not particularly good quality, but then, neither is a polaroid snap.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Grishnakh]

I do all the maintenance on two cars in my family. I'd be surprised if it even averaged out to 1 hour/week for the essential stuff (brakes, axles, oil changes, etc.; NOT waxing!). I have horse people in my family; those things are a real PITA to take care of. They have to be fed twice a day, or they're in danger of actually dying (for some reason they're not good about skipping meals), their stalls have to be cleaned regularly, and don't forget getting their hoofs done every couple months, brushing, grooming, etc. Horses are a major time-sink. Another annoying thing about them: because of the aforementioned rigorous feeding schedule, you can't ever take a vacation if you have a horse, unless you hire someone to come by twice a day to feed it, clean the stalls, etc. Yes, that's similar to some other pets (like dogs), but at least with dogs and the like, you can take them to the kennel for a week if you have to. Horses aren't quite as portable, and places to keep them aren't exactly plentiful or cheap. Contrast this to my cats, which can just be given a big bowl of food and some clean litter and left for 3 days.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Ba-zing!

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Psyborgue]

Yup. I think a lot of people who are so fanatical about digital might open their minds just a little bit if they bothered to take a photo class and play around in the darkroom. It's different, yes, and in some ways is inferior, but in many ways the quality you get is superior, especially in the B&W dept. Even a dye sub will only print 256 increments of grey, which is nothing compared to the infinite value possibilities you get in the darkroom. You lose out on the blacks with digital, especially.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[nine-times]

Sure, I could now carry around (if I was young) a digital camera, and a photo printer, with the requisite cords, some ink, and a ream of paper

Part of my point was that in order to really replace Polaroid cameras, someone would need to come up with an all-in-one device that had the digital camera, photo printer, ink, and paper built-in. It would have to be as small and light as a polaroid, take as many pictures without recharging, hold as many pictures at a time, print as fast as a polaroid develops, etc. Until that happens, we haven't really replaced the polaroid, but it has nothing to do with the analog/digital issue. But still, it's a niche market. They were a niche market even 20 years ago.

But beyond that, yes, there's sentimentality from people who remember when polaroid was huge. My point was, that will go away when we get old and die. Sorry if that's depressing, but it's probably true.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I have a Canon Rebel XTi DSLR. Its a wonderful camera. I can't find the voice feature. I think what you mean is crap cameras have a shitload of extra features like voice annotation to distract you from the fact that they take shit pictures.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Grishnakh]

Bad comparison. People use Model M keyboards because they are technically superior to most newer keyboards. It has nothing to do with vague "feelings" or whatever; mechanical keyswitches are simply superior to pressing on mushy rubber domes. The only reason keyboards aren't made much with mechanical keyswitches any more is because they cost a lot more than mushy rubber domes, and most people don't care enough about quality to want to pay for that.

There are some places still making keyboards with mechanical switches, like the Das Keyboard, and Unicomp which makes Model M style keyboards still. However, the Das Keyboard is quite expensive, and Unicomp's keyboards are kinda cheap-feeling compared to the real Model Ms (they cut corners in the build quality to save on cost), so at this time it's a lot cheaper to just buy an older used (or NOS) IBM Model M from Ebay.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[the42ndfl00r]

There is the lomography aspect to the polaroid but that is not what the Dutch are making. They are making polaroids for film backs, for professionals, and not for shooting fun candid images of friends. Fuji can take that role.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

There is this new technology called "email". It allows one to send text messages and data attachments such as pictures, music and videos to any person in the world in the blink of an eye with only a few key presses. You might want to look into it.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Omestes]

My point was, that will go away when we get old and die. Sorry if that's depressing, but it's probably true.

It depends. If youth culture acts like it does now, and recycles fads from the past over and over, then I doubt it will completely die off for some time to come. It depends on whether Polaroids are like LPs or 8 Tracks, in the long run, I suppose. One is undeniably dead, and the other somehow stays alive with no real sign of dying off.

I think the reality is a bit more fuzzy than LP vs. 8 Track. 35MM isn't going to die for a very long time, while Polaroid will probably be a diminishing niche market for a long time, unless there is a popular or artistic revival of interest in them. Right now there is a minor resurgence. To be honest, I haven't even though of Polaroid since I was in my early teens.

But now I'm digging through all my old (non-digital) albums marveling at what a moron I was when I was young.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[majid_aldo]

Sure you can get functionally the same thing with any consumer point and shoot digital camera (take picture, check LCD, print later), but in comparison, the images you get can only be described as bland and mechanical. Not to mention watching your picture develop almost magically as you shake it. ..There are still enthusiasts who scour ebay only for long-expired Polaroids because of the unique color shifts that they give.

is this the imaging equivalent of audiophile's description of analog sound as "warm" and digital sound as "harsh"?!
HQ digital is better. get over it. you can artificially create that "color shif" using image editing software.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[sortius_nod]

I can understand for a specific artistic effect, but Polaroids were notoriously unreliable, they degraded quickly, and the colours were never 100% correct. The reason why the standard died, as was mentioned by the GGGP was for the instant "view and reshoot if needed".

I doubt many artists would even use polaroids due to the rapid degradation of the photo when exposed to light for great periods of time. Not having any negatives also ensures that the photo cannot be reprinted if it does deteriorate.

For law enforcement, that would be just stupid. Monumentally stupid. The quality and the life of the photo ensure that the evidence is not permissible in a court. If it was 35mm film, I'd understand, but not Polaroids.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Dogtanian]

Even a dye sub will only print 256 increments of grey, which is nothing compared to the infinite value possibilities you get in the darkroom.

Sounds convincingly mediocre, until you consider that film's "infinite value possibilities" are in fact nothing of the sort. Film grain can only record 2 levels- black and white- and the "greys" are effectively just dithering. (*)

Of course, in practice this doesn't matter; film generally gives very high quality results and smooth gradients to the human eye. And I'm not claiming that a dye sub is necessarily better because it has more levels- actually, it's going to have to do pretty well to beat film.

My point is that film doesn't suffer from its theoretical quantisation, so it's unfair to criticise dye subs from the same theoretical perspective. Better to judge them on real world performance.

(*) Incidentally, this is why comparing film's quality to digital's using test charts of high contrast lines isn't necessarily the best test. Here, the image is either "on" (white) or "off" (black) and film can record at full "per-grain" resolution. However, most real life subjects incorporate grey, which results in a dither of black and white grains, reducing the effective resolution.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[westlake]

Digital cameras, with their screens and additional features, do the same job but do it even better. There's no need for instant film anymore.

The 1 1/2" LCD may solve the simpler problems of lighting and composition - but it is not the full sized photographic print.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Adrian Lopez]

Did i tell you about my memory condition?

My eyes say "yes," but my memory condition says "no".

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Psyborgue]

film grain is black and white, yes, but the print media is what i'm talking about. The actual paper supports an infinite amount of values. How it gets there (whether by film negative or digital negative on transparency) is not what I was talking about... I agree with the rest of your post, though, especially how real word results are most important.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[bcnstony]

Ditto on the work of art. I met a French woman in Corsica who had chosen Polaroids as her preferred medium for art. The colors had that cooky, dated hue right away. It inspired me to buy a Polaroid, though I rarely use it. Her website, with said Polaroid pics: http://clotildefotopassion.free.fr/

Re:They're called digital cameras

[bhtooefr]

There's also using Polaroids as proof shots for large format work.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Ihmhi]

Plus with the horse drawn carriage, the exhaust is in front of the driver instead of behind.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Very very true. Even though cameras today are digital, they completely lack features that were standard in older cameras, like instant printing. Camera makers took one step back to take several steps forward, and now need to retrace steps and bring back what was lost. Wouldn't it be neat to use a digital camera to take a photo, and then be able to print one out instamatically?

Re:They're called digital cameras

[rhyder128k]

The high price was also a factor that worked against it.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[ckaminski]

When computing the cost of a ride, I include the actual cost of the ride over three years as part of the equation. So that $15,000 car I paid cash for, has to last me at least three years @ $5000/year plus maintenance and misc repairs. (I drive A LOT).

Once I get over roughly $7000/y, I'm past break even (not somewhere I want to be), and one large repair bill could be motivation enough to trade it in.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Grishnakh]

If your cars aren't lasting past 3 years without needing major repairs, you're buying crappy cars. My car is 15 years old and still works just fine.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[petermgreen]

Your numbers do not seem to match up at all with those from the articles you are citing.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[IndustrialComplex]

No, my equation was in response to the remark that a car is more energy efficient than a horse drawn carriage. Obviously the car has many advantages over the carriage. I don't think you can claim that energy efficiency is one of them

What if you try to push a horse to the limits of the typical sedan? Might only get a few feet per horse. Not very efficient. That's a lot of horses. ;)

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of the advantage of instant film was being able to see how the picture was that instant, thus giving you the ability to retake the picture if you weren't satisfied. Digital cameras, with their screens and additional features, do the same job but do it even better. There's no need for instant film anymore.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned. But why not incorporate a viewer before developing that would save you on film.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Aerobic respiration is ~25% efficient. There are further inefficiencies (big ones) in the muscles, plus a horse's gait is much higher-friction than a rolling wheel. Cars actually outperform animals in pure thermal efficiency by a large margin.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Burning1]

How'd you remember your login/password? Or do you have it tattooed on you somewhere?

That 90 day password rotation policy is going to be a bitch...

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Faerunner]

Ok, so waxing's not important. :P But I'd argue the rest!

Re:They're called digital cameras

[The Grim Reefer2]

Yup. I think a lot of people who are so fanatical about digital might open their minds just a little bit if they bothered to take a photo class and play around in the darkroom. It's different, yes, and in some ways is inferior, but in many ways the quality you get is superior, especially in the B&W dept.

That's why I have a Canon AE-1 for film and a 40D for digital. Though I must say, the AE-1 has not seen much use in some time. The convenience of digital usually trumps any superiority of film 99% of the time for me these days.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Dodder]

Damn! THANK YOU! C.I.P. I forgot my friend used my camera two weeks ago and I've forgotten to email her the pictures.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Dodder]

Sure. But I've also noticed the annoying trend of having to pose for over a half dozen shots to get it "Just Right". I somewhat miss the old days of take the picture and capture the moment as opposed to keep taking the picture until we capture the moment we want.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Lunzo]

I'd read that Polaroid have a patent on their film. Kodak or someone else were going to product Polaroid film for exactly the niche market you mentioned but were told to cease and desist.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[confused one]

Yes they do (Polaroid). I think you're referring to Fuji film. From the article, it sounds like Polaroid, ownership of the company and all of its assets, is in flux. Good time to try to get said patents, if they're still valid.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Landshark17]

Amen. In addition to the quality of the prints, working in the darkroom one develops a good eye for what is worth printing, since it was such a time investment to get one print right. Printing something well is a long, involved process that takes patience and dedication and a true devotion to the image, so you're not going to print just anything. On a good day in the lab, I'd get maybe five or six prints done really well, so I had to choose the best negatives from about twenty or so rolls of film I'd shot. Digital makes it easier to shoot and share, but as a result people seem to think they need to share everything completely uncut.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[penguinchris]

I don't have much to add, but wanted to say that I have an A-1 my grandfather gave me as well as a 40D. I have several quite expensive EF lenses for the 40D, but on the A-1 I just use the stock 50mm f/1.8.

Yet... when I do occasionally use the A-1, I am so much more pleased with the photos I get. It's not just the quality, though that is certainly there - especially with black and white film - but somehow the photos almost always turn out better. It's got something to do with the different techniques you use with a camera like the A-1 or AE-1 compared to those with one like the 40D with big lenses.

I do have 30mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.8, and 85mm f/1.8 EF primes for the 40D... that helps, but it's not just the classic 50mm f/1.8 on the A-1 that does it. There's much more to it that draws me back to using the A-1 once in a while.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Psyborgue]

That's another problem with digital. It makes people "shutter happy". It's "snap snap snap" without thinking about the image or really composing anything. It's for this reason I intentionally carry around a small card in my DLSR when I shoot digital (yeah... i'll admit I carry a spare, but I try not to use it unless I'm having a really good day.).

Re:They're called digital cameras

[ZosX]

You just ruined my day! Thanks you insensitive clod!

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Landshark17]

Since I've switched over to digital I have found myself getting trigger happy. Then again, I was pretty trigger happy in my film days as well, I just work towards being judicious about what I choose to touch up and post like when I had to choose what to print and give away to people or mount and display. I worked out the numbers, my ratio for both is about 1 good photo for every 7 taken. Though to be fair, looking over the raw digital pictures on my computer screen allows me to take a much closer look and make a much more informed decision than I ever did when I was holding negatives up to the light or looking through a contact print.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Short sighted analysis I think. With instant film you can take a pic and just give it to someone to put in their wallet or whatever. Although there are fewer reasons to do this these days I can think of situations where this would be preferable to taking pics, getting to a PC / printer. Printing on photo quality paper, going back to the person and then giving it to them. Not my preference though.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

also, to my knowledge, my car has never left a steaming shit pile in it's wake.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Juergen Kreileder]

There's no need for instant film anymore.

Only if you see it from a pure technical standpoint. Photography also is art though, and instant films are the medium some people prefer due to the involved process and style of results. Take a look at sites like POLANOIR, Polanoid, or the various groups on Flickr (my polaroid set).

Re:They're called digital cameras

[johannesg]

You couldnt be more wrong. There are still photographers who use film because they are snobbish elitists who feels it elevates them far above the unwashed masses with their convenient digital cameras

There, fixed that for you. But feel free to continu using film, you are not bothering me in the least...

Megapixels dont mean anything. You can have large number of megapixels in a point and shoot, but it still doesnt come near a pro-amerature / pro SLR as far as quality.

Yeah, yeah, we all know that by now. Bit of a straw man really. I don't think I actually know anyone who cares about megapixels. Things they do care about: size of the camera and convenience of the interface, and on the other side of the spectrum, quality of the lens and quality of the result.

I learned more about photography shooting film than I did with a digital.

Funny: I learned far more shooting digital than I ever did with film. With film I made the occasional picture when I was on holiday, only seeing the results three weeks later after I came back and had them developed. The link between how I used the camera and what results I got was totally non-existent because I would have forgotten about that stuff by the time I was looking at my crappy pictures.

And now? I take my digital (four megapixel) camera with me almost every weekend, I make multiple shots of anything I think is worth shooting, and since I get immediate feedback I have learned a great deal about how to properly use the camera and how to make great shots. I regularly produce high-quality pictures now (good framing, good light, good choice of subject matter).

And that's the crux of the matter, of course: the digital camera has allowed me to learn enough to approach the level of professional photographers, something that was previously only possible if you seriously dedicated yourself to it. I understand why that bothers people such as you, but you really shouldn't blame the tools...

Re:They're called digital cameras

[giuda]

it's called HDR

Re:They're called digital cameras

[bronney]

I actually started off serious photography with the D40x, and have since sold it. Now I only have film cameras (the ixus and mobile phone don't count).

The trigger happy wasn't the result but rather the hindrance to photography. Snaps are fine if you don't look at it right after. I find many newbies spend their time "looking at the screen" that they miss what's really going on in the real world.

Photography isn't just looking through the VF, compose, shoot, print. There's a lot of observation and thought involved away from the camera. And if you spend all your time looking at the LCD who knows what you're missing in the grand picture. I find "the shot" is only a small part of what photography is.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[darkstar949]

It's not the same, the unpredictability of some films is exactly what makes them interesting to work with. Sure you can reproduce a lot of the same effects in Photoshop, but those are a force reproduction as opposed to something that happens out in the field, it's not some much that other people will know, but the fact that you will know.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[darkstar949]

Actually, it depends upon what format you are using. Someone who is shooting medium format and not using a system might still be using film for the simple reason that you can afford an older medium format film camera and film, but not be able to afford an entry level digital equivalent. This isn't a small difference either, an entry level digital medium format setup (e.g. body, back, lens, and software to work with the RAW images) is going to put you back somewhere around $10,000 where as a basic film setup (e.g. Holga and a couple rolls of 400 ISO film) will only put you back around $50-$75 depending upon where you go for developing. If you go a step up from that you could also get a used medium format camera that supports digital backs and then just get one in the future as well, that may put you back around $1,000.

Also, to a limited extent the megapixels do matter, but only if you are trying to make larger prints, once you are up around 10 megapixels, they stop mattering as much and the optics of the camera start to matter a lot more.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[j-pimp]

There's also using Polaroids as proof shots for large format work.

A photographer I know has special backplates for his Nikon F series for taking Polaroids. He uses them for exactly that purpose when shooting 220 film. I don't think he's done film in years.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[harl]

You're ignoring a major flaw. Sure you can hand one person the only copy in existence right now. Alternately if you want to wait a bit you can give everyone a copy.

The only possible response to someone asking "Can I have a copy of that one?" is "No I used a technology that prohibits me from making additional copies."

What happens if that unique polaroid is lost or damaged?

The product is obsolete. Move on.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

You're still beating this dead horse? If you can't control yourself and use good technique then you will make those bad decisions... regardless of the camera. Some people are fascinated by very simple things.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Manfred Maccx]

It's funny that you talk about the instant gratification of the Polaroid and how it was a good thing. Most of the time, the film fanatics will look down on us, digital users and despise us for that very same reason, because according to them, we are in the digital photography only for the instant gratification.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[antiseptic_poetry]

I'm actually rather surprised that nobody (especially Polaroid of all companies) has even attempted a digital camera with tiny printer built-in and enough film for a dozen photos.

http://www.polaroid.com/polaroidtwo/gb/

Re:They're called digital cameras

[petermgreen]

apparently there are even camera/software combintions that can take a series of exposures of different lengths and combine them automatically to create a single high dynamic range image.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[interglossa]

I have a neighbor who still occasionally takes Daguerrotypes (Bequerel method, all safe). They preserve the aura of the subject because they are 'negatives' created directly by the light that struck the sitter. There will always be a place for alternative photography.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't call that a plus.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[GWBasic]

There's no need for horse-drawn carriages either, given that cars are a quicker and more energy efficient means of conveyance, but there are always a few hapless romantics who like to see the world as it once was.

They run in downtown Devner, CO. It's kind of touristy; but they're also a bit more pedestrian-friendly then aggressive taxis.

By the way, if you want a vehicle that can automatically take you home when you're blitzed at the bar; a horse is a lot better then a car!

Re:They're called digital cameras

[ckaminski]

Three Fords, 1 Buick and 1 Plymouth. I've never had a single one of them have a transmission survive past 130,000 miles (current ride excepted - a Taurus).

I put anywhere from 35-60,000 miles a year on my car. Three years is about right.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Grishnakh]

Stop buying American. You can't expect cars like that to last long. Secondly, stop buying automatic transmissions. Manuals never fail.

Re:They're called digital cameras

[Eil]

Hmm. Well there it is. :)

Stopping making?

[harryandthehenderson]

Another great article with award-winning editing by kdawson!

Polaroid Inc. stopping making

Does this clown even read the shit he posts?

Re:Stopping making?

[dblackshell]

Not everybody on /. is a native English speaker.

Re:Stopping making?

[harryandthehenderson]

Not everybody on /. is a native English speaker.

Good for them. What does that have to do with kdawson, a native English speaker, being a horrible editor who repeatedly fails to miss obvious typos and grammatical errors in shit he posts?

Re:Stopping making?

[dblackshell]

maybe he's intending to move in a foreign (non-English speaking) country, thus deliberately starting to act like a foreigner? :)

Re:Stopping making?

[couchslug]

"Not everybody on /. is a native English speaker."

Of course not. Slashdot is a US site.

Polaroids are cool

[orta]

I love the instant feedback you can get just watching it soak up the sun before seeing just how truely bad your photography is. I've gone through 3 cameras, fun times. It'd be nice to see if these guys get anywhere.

Tag?

[gubers33]

Can someone please explain why porn is one of the tags on this story? Retro pictures for retro porn?

Re:Tag?

[mapkinase]

I think people are referring to extra privacy of the polaroid: you get only one copy of the image per shot, while in film cameras you get a print AND a negative (cf. numerous classic usage in movies) and in digital camera provides a possibility of infinite number of copies.

Re:Tag?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone please explain why porn is one of the tags on this story?

People are more likely to take off their clothes for the camera if they know the photos are easy to destroy and more difficult to copy...

Re:Tag?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because in today's Internet-connected world there's always the fear that any digital picture can wind up online, whether deliberately or accidentally, whereas a Polaroid picture is unlikely to leave the possession of the one who took it (or who had it taken for them) and thus be more likely to exist in the first place

Re:Tag?

[sexconker]

Amateur pornographers often used Polaroids to avoid having to develop their film at a store.

Especially useful for test shots with new models/actors. Decent enough results, you don't have to worry about the photomat guy making extra copies and selling them, a lot more cost-effective than contracting out to a more trusted source for developing (since most photos will be trashed / paper clipped to an application for a pro photo/film shoot), and a lot easier to say "here are all the photos" when you land a contract / the model/actor bails out.

Also useful if it's pics of you and your significant others that you don't intend to sell/distribute, and of course, for anything that is super freaky, borderline illegal, or illegal.

Re:Tag?

[Greyfox]

One of the best uses for the camera was to take naked pictures without having to have your own darkroom. Not amm... that I would know anything about that...

On a side note, my uncle is a comedian and one day we set up some Barbie porn using my sister's dolls. We forgot to mention to my mother (whose camera we used) what was on that roll. She got a very odd look from the guy at Wolf camera when she went in to pick her pictures up. My uncle's comment was "Good thing your sister didn't have Barbie's dream horse..."

Re:Tag?

[oneiros27]

Close, but a missing detail --

With film, unless you had your own dark room setup, you'd have to turn over the roll of film to someone else to develop -- meaning they could either (1) refuse to give you the prints, (2) report you to police if they didn't like your photos, or (3) make copies. There are photo labs that cater to artists that might not be as much as a problem, but you wouldn't want to drop your roll off at the local drugstore or "(x) Hour Photo" place at the mall.

Polaroids didn't have this problem for this particular use.

Re:Tag?

[Chyeld]

Or they are remembering one of the uses Poloroids had back in their heyday was taking pics in the bedroom.

Many a kid in the 70-80's was introduced to a world of nightmares and a desire to bleach their eyes by discovering their folks' "hidden" shoebox of memories...

Re:Tag?

[Khashishi]

Can someone please explain why porn is one of the tags on this story? Retro pictures for retro porn?

You must be new here.

Re:Tag?

[oldspewey]

Lucky you ... I discovered my grandparents' shoebox.

Re:Tag?

[Anonymous Coward]

and you didn't let G.I. Joe in on the action? Uncle Sam weeps when his Joes don't get action.

Re:Tag?

[cashman73]

Many a kid in the 70-80's was introduced to a world of nightmares and a desire to bleach their eyes by discovering their folks' "hidden" shoebox of memories...

Maybe they were the lucky ones! With Goatse, Tubgirl, 2 Girls 1 Cup, and everything else, we need eye bleach just being ON the internet!

Re:Tag?

[mapkinase]

I did not know about this usage, but that's kind of usage I was referring to.

Re:Tag?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was also useful to blackmail people.

In the digital age you are never sure they really hand you over the only copy, so you can only pay them not to distribute them.

On the other hand, they could still make a scan of the polaroid.

Re:Tag?

[berashith]

Years ago I took a pic of my girlfriend using a polaroid to work around her privacy concerns. Then we scanned it and sent it in to consumptionjunction.

Re:Tag?

[Anonymous Coward]

One time I found the digital equivalent...

Re:Tag?

[MadCow42]

At the camera shop I worked at, we called them "Pornaroids". When a guy that fits the stereotypical vision of a pimp comes in to buy one camera and 50 packs of film, you can only assume that's what he's using it for. Quite amusing.

However, we had a fair share of that stuff come into the lab on normal film too - you'd be amazed what people take pictures of. :)

MadCow.

Re:Tag?

[AioKits]

Many a kid in the 70-80's was introduced to a world of nightmares and a desire to bleach their eyes by discovering their folks' "hidden" shoebox of memories...

Ah yes, I remember this form of trauma. When I was young my friend and I decided to go searching through his parent's closet during the holiday season cause that's where the presents are hidden by every parent, ever. We didn't find the presents, we did find a photo of his mom (a nice woman, but a very very large woman) sprawled across something with his dad (whom had one good eye and another...not so good eye) 'holding onto' her from behind. Well, you could see his head, his arm and part of a leg, so we assumed it was him.

His parents were nice people, I mean no disrespect, but cripes... Gave up looking after that surprise. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to find one of those oversized q-tips and jab it into the skull a few times.

Re:Tag?

[cain]

Or they are remembering one of the uses Poloroids had back in their heyday was taking pics in the bedroom.

Many a kid in the 70-80's was introduced to a world of nightmares and a desire to bleach their eyes by discovering their folks' "hidden" shoebox of memories...

[citation not needed]

Re:Tag?

[daveywest]

I worked at a grocery story that had a 1-hour photo. The manager, Harvey requested that an extra copy of any naughty pictures be saved in case we were ever involved in litigation or criminal investigations. Mysteriously, the "Harvey-file" (as it later became known) disappeared the day the manager was transfered for sexual harassment.

Re:Tag?

[xactuary]

Pron? You're soaking in it!

Re:Tag?

[Hatta]

Also useful if it's pics of you and your significant others that you don't intend to sell/distribute

How appropriate that I first read this articles title as "Paranoid Lovers Try To Revive Its Instant Film".

Re:Tag?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I worked construction in the late '60s and early '70s, poloroids figured into the "mom and pop" porn business. West Virginia hillbillys used to show up now and then at the construction trailers selling what were called "poloroid spread shots" -- home made porn featuring their wives, sisters, girlfriends, (and moms, perhaps).

Re:Tag?

[Tetsujin]

Or they are remembering one of the uses Poloroids had back in their heyday was taking pics in the bedroom.

Many a kid in the 70-80's was introduced to a world of nightmares and a desire to bleach their eyes by discovering their folks' "hidden" shoebox of memories...

Oedipus? Is that you?

Good Idea

[stonecutter2]

Although the trend is toward easy digital transferring of images, they're usually not that great if taken with cell phones, and digital cameras require an intermediate step to get it to a computer. I remember the days of taking Polaroids of friends, and snapping several so everyone got one. I'm not even sure that most younger folks these days would have even seen a Polaroid "insta-matic" but I bet they'd get a real kick out of them if they did. It was kind of special that you got to shoot the picture and develop it and instantly pass it along/share it with others. I hope they can figure out the chemical process necessary to recreate the film, but maybe Kodak could be persuaded to license the formula to the new manufacturer?

Re:Good Idea

[Nerdposeur]

I remember the days of taking Polaroids of friends, and snapping several so everyone got one.

That's cool. Wouldn't it be nice if you could do the same now - snap a digital picture and then Bluetooth it to the phone of everyone standing there?

I suppose an acceptable alternative would be that your pictures are uploaded to a web album in real time and you can immediately text a short URL to everyone...

Re:Good Idea

[stonecutter2]

This digital stuff is just not the same as physically possessing something that only you have access to. There are no permissions to set on an album, no internet required, and it's easily hid in a shoebox far from parents prying eyes when you, for example, take a goofy picture of your friend pretending to drink one of his Dad's beers with a cigarette in his hand.

Re:Good Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, I'm pretty sure even the shittiest polaroid had better resolution than 99.9% of all bluetooth enabled phones.

oh did I mention that 4x3 is a lot bigger than 1.5x1?

Re:Good Idea

[owlstead]

I'm not so sure that people will be impressed. The quality/stability of these poloroid photo's was sketchy at best. You had to wait quite a bit of time for the photo to develop, during which time the photo needed to be handled carefully. The rather loud mechanism and large heavy camera is not going to impress anyone either. The seeker quality of most poloroid camera's would give you a nice hint on what to expect.

Basically the only reason why film camera's may not get extinct is because image manipulation will be (slightly?) harder with an analogue camera using film. The qualitity of current camera's is already good enough and in many cases better than camera's using film. Of course there is likely some oomph left for film camera's in niche markets and nostalgia is as good a reason as any. But polaroid? Good ridance.

Note that this is a plain old text message and that my line ends seem to go missing for some reason.

Re:Good Idea

[krbvroc1]

I just remember the horribly loud and embarrassing sound of my father standing up and taking a Polaroid in the middle of the very quiet wedding vow portion of a wedding. Click....whuurrrr....shlllllll.

Re:Good Idea

[Nerdposeur]

Yep - digital is easier to share and harder to restrict than analog. It's nearly impossible to do both simultaneously, as DRM failures have proved.

Re:Good Idea

[drinkypoo]

Oh noes, an extra step to get it into the computer? I might have to take the SD card out of my camera, and stick it in the PC!? What will I do!?!!

Polaroids are chemically nasty and we should stop using them immediately. The film packs also include batteries which get thrown away with the unit. It's terrible all over.

Re:Good Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that this is a plain old text message and that my line ends seem to go missing for some reason.

They've obviously metamorphosed into apostrophes. Please, please, please, for your own sake get up to speed on how to correctly form a plural. You look like an idiot, and it's only partially due of the actual content of your post.

Re:Good Idea

[Lvdata]

The newish HTC line of Diamond/Touch Pro have 3MP with a true auto focus mechanism. I use it in place of scanning receipts for my business, and it makes good 4x6 - larger then a Polaroid. With bluetooth, Wifi, and a cell connection.

Re:Good Idea

[the42ndfl00r]

Polaroid has already made a digital camera that has a built in printer called a pogo, that will do that exact thing for you. Kodak can't license their formula for instant film because of the lawsuits set by polaroid all those years ago. The men in Holland are trying to create a completely new, different and cheaper version. You can find out all about it at theimpossibleproject.com ... and it's Ilford/Harmon that's helping out

Re:Good Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be very fun at parties!

Re:Good Idea

[harl]

How exactly is one unique copy of a photo better for sharing than infinite, perfect copies at almost zero cost?

Re:Good Idea

[llachdot]

700+ replies to the original, and only one person is considering the environmental impact of the madness that is Polaroid! The amounts of disposed cartridges that our parents chucked away are responsible for some pretty bad soil pollution due to the batteries, and the chemicals used in the production stage were nasty indeed. I am all for bringing back cherished old stuff (only recently I helped bring an 8-Track Cassette car stereo back to life) but the use of this technology is from the same irresponsible age as the motorized leaf-blower and the patio heater. Oh, you have those at home? Then of course you will be upset at my comments. Have fun taking instant photos of a dying planet!

Re:Good Idea

[bunnyman]

Maybe Black Mesa?

Digital Retro?

[Archangel Michael]

Why not do Digital to chemical process? Have a Digital Camera, that takes AND STORES pictures, just like they do today, but have an OPTION to spit out an Instant Picture as well?

It doesn't have to be one or the other, it can be BOTH.

If I were Polaroid, I'd make a system for printing Digital Photos to REAL photo paper, and not using crappy Inkjet or Color Laser, for the home market.

Re:Digital Retro?

[harryandthehenderson]

If I were Polaroid, I'd make a system for printing Digital Photos to REAL photo paper, and not using crappy Inkjet or Color Laser, for the home market.

You mean like this product that's been around for years?

Re:Digital Retro?

[Yvan256]

Wow, I knew companies were quick to bring new products to market, but 3 minutes later and it's already available on amazon?

Polaroid, color me impressed!

Re:Digital Retro?

[twidarkling]

As the other pointed out, that's existed for ages, but what's more, there's ones like that which you can just hook the camera directly to, and print from it without a computer.

I prefer the idea you were alluding to with this bit:

Have a Digital Camera, that takes AND STORES pictures, just like they do today, but have an OPTION to spit out an Instant Picture as well?

Basically, combine a digital and polaroid camera. Take the picture, have it show up on a screen, and ask if you want to (s)ave, (p)rint, (d)elete? And you can save it, then go back to it on the screen, and print multiple copies right then and there. I can't imagine that this wouldn't have a market. People would love to be able to crank out 3 or 4 copies of a photo right then and there, and then go home and throw it up on facebook, all on their own.

Re:Digital Retro?

[harryandthehenderson]

That product was already brought out by Polaroid last year.

Re:Digital Retro?

[al0ha]

>> If I were Polaroid, I'd make a system for printing Digital Photos to REAL photo paper, and not using crappy Inkjet or Color Laser, for the home market.
Amen brother - Inkjet and color laser paper quality sucks. Though I haven't tried it, you can probably print E6 process using a laptop projector, though I suppose the focus quality will not be as good as an enlarger, so perhaps one could modify an old E6 enlarger to use the laptop projector as the light source.

Re:Digital Retro?

[harryandthehenderson]

Oops that was meant to be this product.

Re:Digital Retro?

[harryandthehenderson]

Consumer photo printers for digital cameras have existed for close to a decade. Just so you know...

Re:Digital Retro?

[sexconker]

Because you'd need a mechanism for exposing the chemicals to light.

You could fairly easily have a camera that operates in either mode, but not both at the same time (digital pic or instant pic).

With a lot of work, you could have a camera that is a digital camera, but also does a single instant print. You'd have huge issues with getting the optics right. You need the SAME IMAGE (geometrically) to go to the film and to the sensor. But the sensor and the film have completely different requirements for exposure time, amount of light let in, etc. Even if you could tweak the sensors and the chemicals a bit to be more in line, you'd never get them to output the same thing. And of course, you have to split that incoming light perfectly in two (one view for the film one for the sensor), and you're basically neutering the quality of both. Forgot fast shots or shots where the lighting isn't fucking perfect.

Now, if you wanted a camera that could do both and print out multiple prints, the you'd need some sort of fucking projector system in the camera. Hmmm, maybe if you had the sensor in front and the film behind, you could load up a pic, point the camera at a bright light source (the source to expose the film) and use the sensor as a sort of projection filter. Would require a new type of sensor to be able to fill both roles, and your quality would be limited by both the steadiness of the light source you're pointing it at and the resolution and range of your sensor. PATENT PENDING, BITCHES. MY IDEA.

Re:Digital Retro?

[Psyborgue]

That method already exists. It's called making a digital negative. Basically you use a high-dpi inkjet (with lightfast ink) to print a negative onto a transparency. Then all you do is place the transparency directly over photo paper, expose to light, and develop. There are specially made transparencies (without patterns) you can get for this express purpose. There is nothing quite like a silver gelatin print. Inkjet can't even get close to the blacks you can get.

Re:Digital Retro?

[La_Boca]

Date first available at Amazon.com: September 4, 1973

Re:Digital Retro?

[harryandthehenderson]

Yeah that's an error. It first came out around 2001 from what I can remember. All the reviews I found for it on CNET, etc were also from early 2001.

Re:Digital Retro?

[speed of lightx2]

that product, and further iterations like the Polaroid Pogo, or even the Dell Wasabi printer for some reason print 2 by 3 inch pictures, instead of the 3 1/2 by 4 1/4 (frame included). This was a deal killer for people I know.

Re:Digital Retro?

[darkstar949]

There is more to it than just that though, one of the things that people shoot instant film for is that sometimes they will manipulate the photograph while it is still developing. You can't do that with a digital to instant camera.

Re:Digital Retro?

[Reece400]

Unfortunatly, it looks like it uses the same film as the cameras, which is now discontinued!

While slightly larger, the Canon Selphy (http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/product/30490/review/canon_selphy_cp740.html) prints photos using dye sublimation rather than inkjet onto glossy 4x6's. Other than the backside of the paper, hard to tell the difference from most drugstore photo shops.

Re:Digital Retro?

[twidarkling]

As, according to Amazon, that hasn't been released yet, I'd say I'd had a decent idea, with little way to know the product had been brought to market.

Which leads me to ask why someone modded me redundant.

Re:Digital Retro?

[harryandthehenderson]

Which leads me to ask why someone modded me redundant.

For asking why Polaroid hasn't designed something that it already clearly has?

Re:Digital Retro?

[arnbuck]

There is also this product that uses much newer technology than parent's link http://www.amazon.com/Polaroid-Instant-Mobile-Printer-%2528CZA%252d10011B%2529/dp/B001GTV0G2/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1243365725&sr=1-6 It was designed but what remains of the old Polaroid R&D group. More info at http://www.zink.com/how-ZINK-works

Re:Digital Retro?

[Kjella]

Well, for one there's no real reason to have it in the camera, you'd prefer the lighter handling and flexibility of not having it in the camera. And if you do want the near-instant picture, there's plenty options for portable photo printers. If I was trying to solve this non-problem, I'd go with wireless and a photoprinter in synch mode or whatever. Photographter snaps a picture, and it gets transmitted to nearby photo printer. Photographer can have early first look on the display. By the time he's done shooting, there's a nice stack of photos waiting for him. Either at a fixed position or in his backpack for mobillity. Trouble is there's now plenty competition on that. As for "crappy Inkjet"... have you seen the output of a cheap 6 color inkjet? I got one and they're plenty on proper photo paper.

Re:Digital Retro?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like this product that's been around for years?

Most strikingly, Amazon.com made it available in its very early days in the internet (emphasis mine):

Date first available at Amazon.com: September 4, 1973

Re:Digital Retro?

[the42ndfl00r]

They have the Pogo: http://www.polaroid.com/global/detail.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524441769154&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302037126&bmUID=1243376081801&bmLocale=en_US Camera and printer in one. Plus the printer uses no ink. I have no idea how that works, but apparently it does.

Re:Digital Retro?

[commodoresloat]

Well, it is Polaroid, after all, so they didn't have to wait for any developments before bringing out the product.

Re:Digital Retro?

[jonbryce]

My Canon Pixma IP8500 can produce pretty good quality prints.

Re:Digital Retro?

[vrmlguy]

Sounds perfect for me. I've got an old IZone that (before the film ran out) produced pictures about that size. I'd use the optional sticky-back film and take photos of my family and friends, then use them as playing pieces for various games. A pre-digital version of avatars, if you will. No matter how drunk we got, there was never any confusion about who was using which piece. I found a bunch of them in a shoe box in my closet just a few weeks ago. I suppose I should scan the images and post them to flickr or something.

Good luck to them, I guess.

[FlyingSquidStudios]

There will always be people who want to preserve obsolete technology for all sorts of reasons and if it does it for 'em, more power to 'em, I guess. I don't really see this as any weirder or more impractical than people learning to make chain mail or speak a dead language.

Re:Good luck to them, I guess.

[twidarkling]

Hey! Chain mail has tons of practical uses nowadays! It's more flexible while providing greater protection than something like a safety apron in a work shop.

Re:Good luck to them, I guess.

[Hognoxious]

You might be joking, but I've seen butchers & fishmongers wearing chainmail gloves.

No, probably not

[93 Escort Wagon]

If everyone runs in one direction [i.e. digital photography], it creates a niche market in the other.

Yeah, I'm sure the horse buggy manufacturers tried to claim something similar after Ford started to ramp up production. But we're not talking about music genres here - we're talking about a new technology that's made the old technology completely obsolete.

I'm old enough to have used a "Polaroid Swinger" back when I was a kid. Sure, they were a lot of fun - but the tech has passed them by.

Re:No, probably not

[Itninja]

I don't know man....the rise of the CD has rekindled a love for vinyl LPs. The Fred Meyer in my town even has a small section dedicated to /new/ vinyl. And I am sure there was a niche market created for horse buggy makers after the rise of the automobile.

Re:No, probably not

[techiemikey]

And yet, you still see some people using a horse and buggy. The Amish and various people in cities for park tours for example.

Re:No, probably not

[zarkill]

But you see, the point is that someone still DOES make horse buggies. People still go to Central Park to ride the buggies, and SOMEONE has to create them.

That's the great thing about a niche market - if you're the only one in a certain business, be it horse buggies or resurrecting Polaroid film, you might very well be able to get enough customers who are interested in your product to stay in business.

If they think that enough people still find the old-school Polaroid film appealing, then they'd be stupid NOT to take their money, since no one else wants to.

Re:No, probably not

[Anonymous Coward]

There ARE companies still making horse-drawn carriages. Been to central park lately? In fact, there are people willing to pay for the experience of riding around in one. It's called a niche market..

Re:No, probably not

[blhack]

we're talking about a new technology that's made the old technology completely obsolete.

In other words:

"I personally find this technology to be STOOPID! The huge hordes of people that still want it are equally STOOPID and we should ignore any opportunities to fulfill a demand because the demand is STOOPID and I disgree with it!"

Is that about right?

(hint: if I could get a Polaroid and the film for it at target, I would)
(bonus: I shoot digital all day long [like it's my job{oh wait, it IS my job!}])

Re:No, probably not

[phantomfive]

And sure enough, those who survived seem to be doing quite well. As long as some people still want them, other people will be able to make a profit off it.

Re:No, probably not

[Tenebrousedge]

No, the rise of volume levels and dynamic range compression has rekindled a love for vinyl. See 'loudness war' on Wikipedia.

Re:No, probably not

[Anonymous Coward]

we're talking about a new technology that's made the old technology completely obsolete.

With regards to working technology, nothing, repeat nothing, is ever "completely" obsolete.

Only a fool would think otherwise.

Re:No, probably not

[LWATCDR]

You know what? I saw a horse drawn buggy Friday night. They still make them for the hobbyist and for a number of businesses.
So by that standard it should work out well for them.

Re:No, probably not

[Anonymous Coward]

how does a format with less dynamic range and higher noise floors than a cd serve as a fix for the loudness war?

Re:No, probably not

[hamburgler007]

A big difference though is that a well recorded LP is superior in many ways to a CD.

Re:No, probably not

[lxs]

Yeah yeah, and a SNES sucks as a gaming platform because a PS3 has teh better technology.

The point is, Polaroid is FUN. The only thing wrong with it, is that the film packs (if you still can get them) are horribly expensive.
Well, it's fun for people who have a life, and friends, and occasionally get out of their house...

Re:No, probably not

[Tetsujin]

And I am sure there was a niche market created for horse buggy makers after the rise of the automobile.

Yeah, it's called "Pennsylvania".

Re:No, probably not

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah the poster was thinking of longetivity, quality, clarity, etc. Everything except for the huggy concept that it's a special tech :)

Now, make a Polaroid film that prints from exposure to digital image display and you have the new tech wrapped into old tech. Then, you could utilise the new technologies available in the world and still have an affinity for old nostalgia.
This is Polaroid we're talking about here, not digital versus analog anyway... so I guess in the end it's just some instamatic fetish.

Re:No, probably not

[Walter Carver]

Will you show us/me some of the pictures you take? I mean both, Polaroid snashots you have took in the bast, or digital pictures for you job.

Duh?

[sexconker]

"If everyone runs in one direction [i.e. digital photography], it creates a niche market in the other."

Uh, no, not if EVERYONE runs in one direction.
Either way, it's pretty much a retarded business decision. Let's bring back those cameras that used 35 mm film AND showed you an (estimated) instant view of it on an LCD.

How about those cameras that saved to floppies?

RETRO COOL AMIRITE?

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, those floppy-cameras were frigging cool... there's just something about having a tangible "thing" (the floppy) representing your image [SD card smeshD card - not the same feel man].

Re:Duh?

[keithpreston]

Hey, don't make fun of cameras that save to floppies. I swear my father to this day still uses his Sony Mavica Camera that uses floppies. It was the highest end camera in the series and had 10x optical zoom and great optics. Such great optics that it took superior 1 megapixels images. Since he almost never views them on a display with more then 1 megapixel he sees no reason to upgrade. I think I'd have to buy him a $500+ DSLR to get him to change.

Re:Duh?

[TeknoHog]

Dude, it's all about the magnetic tape-like medium that keeps your zeros nice and round. Especially the chromium dioxide ones.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

AMIRITE?

Don't nobody worry 'bout me.

Re:Duh?

[Dogtanian]

"If everyone runs in one direction [i.e. digital photography], it creates a niche market in the other."

Uh, no, not if EVERYONE runs in one direction.

You're being wilfully pedantic. Large corporations whose business models revolve around the mass market will often stop supporting a field when "everyone" (read; the vast majority of people) leaves it. While they may not be interested in serving the small number of remaining users, smaller businesses more focused on niches may be perfectly capable of making decent money from them.

Either way, it's pretty much a retarded business decision. [snip]

Your opinion of why Polaroid sucks might or might not be true, but has no bearing on whether or not it's a "retarded business decision". If it's clear that they can get enough nostalgics (stupid or otherwise) to buy it that they'll make a nice profit, then it's not a "retarded business decision".

That is business.

Re:Duh?

[denzacar]

Uh, no, not if EVERYONE runs in one direction.

6.5 BILLION people on planet.
Lets say that 1 in a million need and want that product - and you are the ONLY ONE IN THE WORLD that supplies it. Who are they gonna call?
Think REAL samurai swords made in the traditional way. And there is absolutely no practical use for those things.

How about those cameras that saved to floppies?

Umm.. And other than memory size and optics those differ from modern cameras how exactly?
Note that both optics and storage are a matter of MONEY - not technology.
Floppy cameras were using floppies cause they were cheap - not cause it was cool or cause it provided any distinctiveness to the photo process.

Re:Duh?

[the42ndfl00r]

It's not retarded when it has a real use in the professional business of photography. Read my post above and maybe you'll be enlightened. Only 50% of professional photographers work completely in digital. 25% completely in film and the other quarter use a mix. Shooting in film that has a higher resolution than any $50,000 camera and then scanning it to create amazing digital prints. I bet before they shoot that expensive sheet of film, they use a polaroid to check the exposure so they don't screw up. Unless you're a photographer, I think you have no business talking in this thread.

Re:Duh?

[sexconker]

Haha. No.
Why would they "use a polaroid to check the exposure"? That makes no sense.
No sense at all!

Re:Duh?

[sexconker]

Ghostbusters?

Hey, they said "everyone". That means all 7 billion + (yes, we're past 7) people. ALL.

Traditional swords have a use - they're historical, some people view them as art, and some people think they're infinitely better than current swords not made by traditional methods.

It's a lot harder to argue for Polaroid film as a historic/art piece for display (the camera body sure, but the film?). Polaroids have been displaced by better cameras. Better in every damned way. If you want instant prints, they STILL SELL Polaroids that print from the camera, without relying on Polaroid film. They have travel photo printers. Photo printing services and kiosks are ubiquitous.

This is like someone trying to resurrect pogs.

Re:Duh?

[sexconker]

I see a market of Polaroid camera users.
I see it has shrunk to abysmal levels.
I see that it will continue to shrink as even the most die hard of users have their cameras fail.
I see that over the next decade or so, the number will too low to be profitable even in the most ideal of situations.

Hey, maybe I'll start up a company that sells floppies, blank cassettes, and, if I'm feeling lucky, DVD Tuesday will be followed by Betamax Wednesday.

Re:Duh?

[sexconker]

You know now what you must do.

Re:Duh?

[The Finn]

you know you're shooting with 400 speed film. throw a polaroid back with 400 speed polaroid film on your medium or large format camera, and _with the same lighting and exposure settings_ take a polaroid shot. it develops in a minute or so, and you can see if you need to adjust, how your shadows are coming out, if your framing and composition is OK, etc. it's like a very slow LCD back.

No one sees the picture develop but you.

[stonecutter2]

You can take a picture of whatever you like. Use your imagination....

Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can still buy Studebaker parts. If they can safely recreate the chem processes for the film, why not keep some kitsch around for the hobbyists and art school kids?

Polaroid appeal

[CherniyVolk]

I always viewed Polaroid cameras as being, to be elegant and frank, ghetto.

But, they do have a unique visual aesthetic, it's not just the bold white border and the thick bottom border that gives it away. Nor the glassy sheen over the picture itself. There is something about a Polaroid shot, that makes the picture undoubtedly Polaroid nearly every time. It looks like a ghetto shot, but in this day and age with free artists and artistic expression on a free internet, maybe some of the guys at Deviant Art can do some very very nice retro art using Polaroid shots.

I'm certain of it. Just as certain as "indie" films with their similar low-budget feel gives off a certain appeal to their films. Like Tarantino(sp?) films feel low-budget until Bruce Willis appears before the camera (like he isn't getting paid right?).

My only suggestion to this business endeavor... give the artists a larger sample. Original Polaroid shots were stamp size squares, almost every one of them have some part of the primary subject being clipped by the boundaries. A wide aspect ratio shot, on Polaroid, I think would be very awesome.

Hell, I might even be interested, even though I'm not an artist. Also, maybe an electronic means to get that Polaroid shot, into digital form from the camera itself would be sexy. Afterall, no matter the intentions of the visual artist, it's destined to be digitized eventually. (Rembrandt probably never imagined his work would be digitized yet it has been.)

Re:Polaroid appeal

[kylemonger]

Alien Skin makes software to reproduce the look of vintage film stocks, including Polaroid. If you just want that Polaroid look anyone could have had it long ago without futzing with the klunky old cameras and expensive film. But you'll never convince the diehards with reason; it's not a rational decision to use it any more than preferring peanut butter over chocolate is rational.

Re:Polaroid appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

Rembrandt probably never imagined his work would be digitized yet it has been.

He probably also never imagined electro-copulation, our imaginations are constrained to what surrounds us.

Re:Polaroid appeal

[darkstar949]

That aesthetic is also one of the things that a growing number of photographers are going for when they talk about Lomography which is where the lo-fi aesthetic is part of the appeal. In someways it's a rebellion against the growing digitization of photography and a reminder that there is more to a good photograph then just megapixels.

Re:Polaroid appeal

[actionbastard]

There is something about a Polaroid shot, that makes the picture undoubtedly Polaroid nearly every time.

Yes, there was. It was by and large that the picture was always slightly out of focus or blurred. I had several Polaroid SX-70 style cameras when they were still making them. The original SX-70 had manual focus and the later SLR-680/690 had an ultrasonic auto-focus system that never was quite accurate enough to really get the subject in sharp focus. That, combined with the big, slappy, mirror in the optical path -which was responsible for the motion blurring because of the vibration it setup- always produced less than stunning results despite what their advertisements of the day showed. The film was also an issue, since it was gel-based and didn't 'dry' for several days after the photo was taken. If you pressed on the photo, rubbed it with your finger, or it was stored incorrectly before the film had 'dried', there would be strange and oft-times seriously damaging effects to the photo.

Re:Polaroid appeal

[flink]

I think most visual artists will tell you that the process informs the final product. Applying a Photoshop filter is a far cry from working with the original equipment.

Re:Polaroid appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

You think they are cheap because you have never seen an SLR680 or an SX-70. Both of these cameras had very good optics are are of exceptional quality. The sonar driven focus was instant and worked in any level of lighting, unlike cheaper optical methods.

They also make poloroid backs for large format cameras. Polaroid type 55 film is one of the most fine grain black and white films ever made. Its expensive to use, with the holder costing around $150 and a box of 10 exposures costing around $150. It is also very much worth it, as type 55 produces a negative and a positive, both of which develop instantly.

Re:Polaroid appeal

[penguinchris]

The Alien Skin photoshop plugins work great, but it isn't going to fool too many people into thinking your photo is actually a polaroid if it isn't. Using Alien Skin to alter colors/contrast and add film grain works great to create images simulating other types of aesthetically pleasing film, but with polaroid there are several other factors which make simulation pointless. Primarily is the work that goes into it. If you want to do a good job simulating a polaroid with a digital image, you have to put a lot of thought into shooting it the right way with the right lens, and a lot of processing (beyond the Alien Skin kind of thing) to make it look right.

That's completely opposite of the point of polaroid, which is to enable spontaneous, instant results.

In summary: to do a good fake of polaroid = a lot of thought, time, and processing work, removing the spontaneity and most of the fun for what will likely be a mediocre result; to take a real polaroid = instantaneous, spontaneous, gratifying, fun.

Re:Polaroid appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

Spot on. I've noticed Polaroid gaining enormous ground in indie/retro/music/art/hipster/teen culture lately. Look at a few bands "Pics" sections on MySpace and you'll undoubtedly find some interesting Polaroid shots.

Polaroid just has that unique feel. It instantly gives the picture a retro 70s/80s feel that cannot be easily replicated even in Photoshop. It works especially well when the film is expired - there is even a market for expired Polaroid film.

There's a photographer I found recently, Neil Krug. He shoots expired film (not Polaroid, but with a similar effect) and has made some extraordinary shots with it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/neilkrug/sets/72157613119916582/

ObSteveMartin

[Quiet_Desperation]

but there are always a few hapless romantics who like to see the world as it once was.

An arctic region covered with ice.

Re:ObSteveMartin

[Obfuscant]

An arctic region covered with ice.

Half the north-american continent covered with ice. THOSE were the days. No having to refill the ice-cube trays, you wanted a scotch on the rocks you stuck your fist out the door and picked up the "rocks".

It's rather disingenuous to demand things "as it once was" without remembering that "as it once was" isn't how it always was, even before we got here.

Now get off my damn lawn...

Re:ObSteveMartin

[Poorcku]

insightful? well how about the black plague? that was nice back then....:)
/not sure if anyone gets it.

Re:ObSteveMartin

[Poorcku]

critical strike! +1000 damage.

Re:ObSteveMartin

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, that one nearly made my yoghurt exit my nostrils!

Re:ObSteveMartin

[Quiet_Desperation]

Hey, don't look at me. I don't get the Insightful mod either, and it's my post. :-)

Re:ObSteveMartin

[Bossk-Office]

but there are always a few hapless romantics who like to see the world as it once was.

An arctic region covered with ice.

BLACK METAL! The icy dawn lifteth with an horizon like "Nordens" on fire!!!1

Those that do not remember history...

[Locke2005]

are doomed to repeat it. Could that fact that the Polaroid cameras cost you $1 every time you pushed the button have had anything to do with it's demise? I suspect when they do finally figure out what chemicals were used and compute their costs, they will finally realize how absurd this idea was in the first place. Ok... so now who's nostalgic for the return of microfilm/microfiche?

Re:Those that do not remember history...

[somaTh]

Ok... so now who's nostalgic for the return of microfilm/microfiche?

But, how are people in the future going to read the Orange Catholic Bible?

Re:Those that do not remember history...

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I'm trading in my copy machine for a bunch of monks who will hand copy all of my documents using a quill and ink well.

Re:Those that do not remember history...

[rbrausse]

> so now who's nostalgic for the return of microfilm/microfiche?

huh? microfilm was never gone, how could it return?

at least in Germany many cultural goods are microfilmed for long-term archiving in a closed mine near Freiburg.

Re:Those that do not remember history...

[zippthorne]

Wait.. what happened to microfilm?

Re:Those that do not remember history...

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect when they do finally figure out what chemicals were used and compute their costs, they will finally realize how absurd this idea was in the first place.

Is it your contention that Polaroid knew neither the chemicals used or how much they cost? Are you really that fucking dense? They ran this operation for decades with no clue of what to buy or how much to pay their vendors? Perhaps Business2.0 rotted your mind, but in business1.0, figuring out the profit margin (i.e., 1 - cost/sell) is not a step you skip.

Re:Those that do not remember history...

[the42ndfl00r]

It's about two or three dollars a shot now.

USPTO Contract = $$

[tomservo291]

They just need to land a USPTO contract. Just a few months ago, they used a Polaroid with instant film to take my passport photo.

Re:USPTO Contract = $$

[Anonymous Coward]

And its the same for immigration pictures, I had to have a couple polaroids taken for a green card renewal. I guess the DHS feels they are less likely to be tampered (photoshopped) with.

Re:USPTO Contract = $$

[Abreu]

Same here, there's a huge market of people using polaroid cameras that print ID-size pictures

Tattoos for memory restoration

[Benanov]

"Don't trust the skull."

Re:Tattoos for memory restoration

[Anonymous Coward]

trust the skull

just don't trust Sammy Jenkins

Large format photography

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Polaroids can still be useful for previewing exposures in large-format photography, which is still a film world. They simply don't make 4x5" digital sensors, period.

Using a digital camera to take a test shot can be useful in the same situation, but that means using a separate camera, from a slightly different angle, potentially different field of view, etc.

Re:Large format photography

[Anonymous Coward]

Using a digital camera to take a test shot can be useful in the same situation, but that means using a separate camera, from a slightly different angle, potentially different field of view, etc.

Wait, what? How do you get a Polaroid preview _without_ involving a separate camera (I mean aside from using a large-format Polaroid camera... in which case it still isn't a "preview"). I'll certainly buy using Polaroids for previews, but the argument would be more along the lines of "means having a computer and/or photo printer on site (because the LCDs on the backs of digital cameras are improving, but still aren't nearly good enough for this purpose)".

Re:Large format photography

[badasscat]

Polaroids can still be useful for previewing exposures in large-format photography, which is still a film world. They simply don't make 4x5" digital sensors, period.

They were also still in wide use up until the very end in the film industry, where they were used both for location scouting and for continuity. It is simply *not* more convenient to take a bunch of pictures with a digital camera, go back to the office and print them out, *then* put those printouts in a binder than it is to just take a bunch of photos and stick them in a binder immediately so anyone can see them. Even if you have a small digital printer that you bring with you, that's still an extra step, not to mention the time and effort it takes to hook up the printer and then print out the photo.

Of course, that is what the industry does these days, but they are still not particularly happy about it.

Re:Large format photography

[VVrath]

You can get a Polaroid back for medium/large format cameras that allows you to load an unexposed Polaroid in place of the usual film negative. If you use a Polaroid with the same film speed, you can keep the aperture and shutter lengths unchanged and see a pretty good preview of how the final image will be exposed.

Re:Large format photography

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'd assume that you'd use a piece of polaroid film the same size as your large format film, and put it directly in your large format camera, where the large format film would go...

Re:Large format photography

[Anonymous Coward]

actually they do make 4x5 digital sensors, they cost around $30,000 though.

Re:Large format photography

[darkstar949]

News to me, I just did a quick search around and the biggest digital back I could find was the Leaf Aptus-II which is only 56x36mm where as large format cameras start at around ~102x127mm. Most of the backs I could find out there had large format adapters, but is it still isn't quite the same as a true large format sheet film. Also, when you compare the about $100 for a Polaroid back plus $2 a shot, does it really compare to paying tens of thousands for a digital back.

Re:Large format photography

[LordByronStyrofoam]

Look at Better Light scanners, but keep your eye on your wallet. These are $20,000 for the top-of-the-line. The downside to scanning in-camera is that the scans take quite a while (for a scan equal to a 4x5 transparency). Don't try to take a picture of anything that might move in that time period - like leaves moving in a mild breeze, ocean waves, people, ... and expect it to look 'right'. They are best used on static oblects like making archival images of paintings and the like.

Re:Large format photography

[Maximum Prophet]

Use a digital camera to take a picture of the ground-glass screen before you put the photographic plate in. (Under the black hood)

Re:Large format photography

[ovu]

Not that this is a viable commercial solution, but I've seen people attach flatbed scanners to large format cameras, as a scanning digital back. Pretty wild progressive time lapse smear, like dragging your hand across a photocopier.

Re:Large format photography

[whoever57]

Polaroids can still be useful for previewing exposures in large-format photography, which is still a film world. They simply don't make 4x5" digital sensors, period.

Please explain, in scientific terms, the advantage of a larger sensor. For the purposes of this explanation, do not assume that a larger sensor has more pixels.

The lens size is important (larger == better), and the number of pixels is important, but I suspect that packing those pixels into a smaller size will improve picture quality.

Re:Large format photography

[MadCow42]

>>They simply don't make 4x5" digital sensors, period.

BS. They may not make practical 4x5" sensors for everyone's budget or application, but they DO exist.

Scanning sensors have been around for years (check out companies like Better Light), and even a few full-frame sensors are out there. They may be several orders of magnitude outside your budget, but they're available.

http://www.betterlight.com/

http://www.phaseone.com/Content/p1digitalbacks/Discontinued%20hardware/Studiokit.aspx

MadCow.

Re:Large format photography

[zeropointburn]

This is all for a given number of pixels.

  A small sensor has more dense pixels. It reaches thermal equilibrium more quickly and sees less noise due to temperature differences within the chip. The pixels are very small; electromagnetic interference within the chip itself becomes a noticeable factor in the total noise of the sensor. Lenses for these smaller chips must focus the image to a higher ratio, requiring higher-quality optics for the same quality image, or producing additional optical distortion with the same lens quality. From a production standpoint, smaller sensors means more sensors per wafer with a higher failure rate.

  A large sensor may have internal thermal-equilibrium problems (if temps vary significantly), but is much less susceptible to internal EM interference. If each individual pixel is actually larger, some ambient noise (stray high-energy EM, etc.) can be smoothed out or reduced simply because the pixel is too large to be activated by it. Optics can be cheaper or better (at the same price) than the comparable small-sensor camera. From a production standpoint, large sensors means fewer sensors per wafer with a lower failure rate.

Re:Large format photography

[Anonymous Coward]

They make medium/large backs for digital cameras.

http://www.phaseone.com/Content/p1digitalbacks.aspx

Re:Large format photography

[Chyeld]

The bigger the sensor, the more light that hits it. That, among other things, means the signal per pixel is stronger and thus there should be less noise in the image, all other factors being equal.

Some science for you.

Re:Large format photography

[whoever57]

The bigger the sensor, the more light that hits it.

Err, no! The amount of light that enters the camera is determined by the size of the lens and is unrelated to the size of the sensor.

Re:Large format photography

[whoever57]

The pixels are very small; electromagnetic interference within the chip itself becomes a noticeable factor in the total noise of the sensor.

I'm not sure that this is valid. Why should a smaller sensor be more suceptable to EM noise? Even if it were, the smaller size would mean that the distribution of noise between pixels would be smaller, allowing for better correction during the processing of the picture.

From a production standpoint, smaller sensors means more sensors per wafer with a higher failure rate.

Where do you get this from? Why should failure rates be higher? From a production standpoint, yields are generally higher for smaller die sizes.

If each individual pixel is actually larger, some ambient noise (stray high-energy EM, etc.) can be smoothed out or reduced simply because the pixel is too large to be activated by it.

Why? A larger pixel will be like a larger antenna -- larger currents will be induced in the antenna/pixel. The same total amount of light will shine on the pixel if the lens size is unchanged.

Re:Large format photography

[Anonymous Coward]

It is simply *not* more convenient to take a bunch of pictures with a digital camera, go back to the office and print them out, *then* put those printouts in a binder than it is to just take a bunch of photos and stick them in a binder immediately so anyone can see them.

Can not everyone see a notebook or tablet? It is easier to backup and remote producers/directors can see it too. One problem with the use of new technology is that you sometimes have to go 100% to get the full benefits. For example, how often to people print something in order to fax it? In my office, all the f-ing time. No big deal, but you get my point.

Re:Large format photography

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

The bigger the sensor, the more light that hits it.

Err, no! The amount of light that enters the camera is determined by the size of the lens and is unrelated to the size of the sensor.

Compared to a smaller sensor, the larger sensor requires a larger lens to produce the same field of view. So while the amount of light that enters the camera is determined by the size of the lens, in practice the size of the lens is related to the size of the sensor.

Re:Large format photography

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

More pixels in a given area means smaller pixels which means more heat which means more noise in your photo.

Bigger pixels can also get more light into each pixel for better low-light performance.

Re:Large format photography

[Hognoxious]

Generally, the bigger you can make your signal, the weaker [relatively] the noise will be. The fact of the matter is that small sensors are more noisy, whether you agree or even understand.

Re:Large format photography

[Hognoxious]

The amount of light that enters the camera is determined by the size of the lens

Size? Do you mean the f number, which is the ratio of the the focal length to the aperture?

Have you seen the lenses for a large or medium format camera compared to a 35mm camera, a 110 camera or a cellphone's built in jobby?

Re:Large format photography

[Hognoxious]

They make medium/large backs for digital cameras.

Perhaps someone does, but not tthe people you tried to link to.

Those are the exact opposite - digital backs for large/medium format cameras.

Re:Large format photography

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. You're completely wrong.

I'm not going to get into scientific terms - you're the wrong one. Look it up.

But broadly speaking, the tighter you pack the pixels, the more you lose definition, get interference and noise. A 12 megapixel sensor that's 4x5 inches will stand ridiculous ISOs, like 2000 (maybe, I'm not really experienced in this) without noise. A 12 megapixel sensor in 35mm format will start to get noisy at much lower ISOs, 800 or less. A shitty phone camera sensor behind a shitty phone camera lens will noise up at pretty much any ISO the automatic settings gives you. It's not a huge deal. But bigger sensors are unequivocally better at image quality.

In photography, bigger is always better if you want quality. Bigger sensors, bigger lenses, bigger light sources, bigger apertures.

If any of the terms I've used are unfamiliar to you, please take it as an indication that you are out of your depth and should not talk out of your ass without doing research first.

Re:Large format photography

[petermgreen]

Please explain, in scientific terms, the advantage of a larger sensor. For the purposes of this explanation, do not assume that a larger sensor has more pixels.
There are a many issues, here are a few off the top of my head.

Make your apeture small and you cut out light and cause diffraction, make it large and you get parallax issues, the lens reduces parallax issues to some degree but only for a limited range of distances.

Move the sensor further from the apeture and you will reduce the parallax issues without reducing the light intake. Of course if you do this you will need a larger sensor to capture all the light.

And now a couple of digital specific issues.

In general for a given pixel count the smaller the sensor the worse the fill factor, that means more light is getting wasted hitting inactive areas of the sensor.

The final consideration is dynamic range, typically a larger sensing element will have a larger difference between the noise floor and the saturation mount.

Re:Large format photography

[whoever57]

Generally, the bigger you can make your signal, the weaker [relatively] the noise will be. The fact of the matter is that small sensors are more noisy, whether you agree or even understand.

Would not the same amount of light falling on a smaller sensor give a larger signal? Instead of just telling me I'm wrong and suggesting that I don't understand, please explain.

If you are telling me that a smaller lens is going to result in less light and hence a smaller signal, that's quite another thing, but I was very specific when I posed my original question -- which was related to the size of the sensor alone and assumed that the lens size remained unchanged.

Re:Large format photography

[whoever57]

More pixels in a given area means smaller pixels which means more heat which means more noise in your photo.

Do the sensors really heat up significantly? The sensors don't run at high speeds, so it seems unlikely that they would heat up significantly. Do you have a citation to support your claim?

Bigger pixels can also get more light into each pixel for better low-light performance.

The amount of light entering the camera is determined by the size of the lens. The size of the sensor does not affect this. With a fixed amount of light and a fixed number of pixels, the amount of light per pixel is constant. So, how does a larger sensor collect more light?

Re:Large format photography

[Anonymous Coward]

Scanners != sensors.

Re:Large format photography

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

It doesn't take much heat to generate digital noise and all you need to do is look at the small digital handhelds that have really tiny sensors and very small pixels to see how much more noisy small pixels are.

Light gathering for a digital camera is slightly more complicated. Total light is the speed of the lens but each pixel also has to gather light and the bigger the individual pixel the more light it can gather.

Re:Large format photography

[whoever57]

Light gathering for a digital camera is slightly more complicated. Total light is the speed of the lens but each pixel also has to gather light and the bigger the individual pixel the more light it can gather.

Err, no. The amount of light entering is determined by te size of the lens. That light is spread across the sensor, so, with the same size lens and the same nmber of pixels, the amount of light per pixel (also assuming a fixed amount of time) is the same.

If you don't agre with the above statement, instead of just making bald assertions (as you have done in your posts above), explain why a larger pixel gathers more light if the same amount of light is spread across a larger area.

Re:Large format photography

[dangitman]

Since when? A scanner most definitely has a sensor. How does it capture the image if it doesn't?

Re:Large format photography

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

Why does one care about how big the pixels are? A larger pixel has more light-gathering area, which means the light signal is stronger over a given interval of time.

This usually results in an improved signal to noise ratio (SNR), which creates a smoother and more detailed image. Furthermore, the dynamic range of the images (range of light to dark which the camera can capture without becoming either black or clipping highlights) also increases with larger pixels. This is because each pixel well can contain more photons before it fills up and becomes completely white.

Google is your friend.

Very low but long-term need for old films

[davidwr]

Just as there is a small art market for modern photography using long-obsolete film processes such as tintype, there will be a small art market for various Polaroid films.

The patents on most instant films expired long ago.

Polaroid should publish the trade secrets it is no longer using and leave it up to hobbyists and entrepreneurs to either make the chemicals themselves or contract with a chemical factory to make them. They should also release Kodak from its consent decree on the off-chance that Kodak or a future successor-of-interest may want to play in that arena.

Other makers of obsolete film stocks should do the same.

Re:Very low but long-term need for old films

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were a trade secret, there was never a patent to begin with.

Serious artistic interest

[wsanders]

One thing about the "SX70" process (with the fully contained chemicals in a bubble at the edge of the film), the dyes used were unusually stable and long lasting for the time. There was some serious artistic interest for that reason.

Large-format Polaroid photography was all the rage during the late 80s and early 90s. Mostly because it was insanely expensive (hundreds of dollars per exposure.) Again, it had a unique look and feel that was of some artistic interest.

Since there is still quite a bit of large format activity out there, maybe they can make a go of it. Polaroid only tanked because it was managed by incompetents, not because of failures of their technology.

Re:Serious artistic interest

[Sigismundo]

Another thing about the SX70 film was that you could squish the goo in the picture before it had set to get an interesting impressionistic effect: SX70 Polaroid Manipulation Images.

It's nothing you couldn't do today with software, but for the time it was pretty cool.

Re:Serious artistic interest

[alienw]

Polaroid only tanked because it was managed by incompetents, not because of failures of their technology.

Well, apart from the fact that their market shrunk from hundreds of millions of units to tens of thousands. It's very easy for a company to grow, but it's almost impossible for it to shrink. A factory that is efficient at producing millions of something might be extremely inefficient and cost-prohibitive if you only need to produce a few thousand. I'm sure the entrepreneurs behind this venture will learn about this soon enough.

Re:Serious artistic interest

[the42ndfl00r]

Now you thank god, know what you're talking about, unlike all the other imbeciles commenting in this forum.

Perhaps the original instant-film photograph?

[davidwr]

Shroud of Turin anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Re:Perhaps the original instant-film photograph?

[aitikin]

+1

Properties of Polaroid films

[Animats]

Polaroid film had some unusual properties. For one thing, it's grainless. Unlike silver-based films, Polaroid film itself potentially has detail down to the molecular level. Most of Polaroid's own cameras didn't have good enough optics to take full advantage of this, but there were Polaroid films for view cameras which did.

Re:Properties of Polaroid films

[esme]

Bullshit. The negatives in Polaroid film are silver-halide emulsions just like any standard film. They have the same grain limitations that other films do. A few seconds of googling turned this up:

http://polaroids.theskeltons.org/film3.htm

Re:Properties of Polaroid films

[pz]

Polaroid film had some unusual properties. For one thing, it's grainless. Unlike silver-based films, Polaroid film itself potentially has detail down to the molecular level.

Huh? Polaroid film was, like nearly every other film, based on silver halide particles. The major difference between Polaroid's instant film cameras and standard 126 / 35mm / etc cameras was that the imaging surface was the same as the viewing surface so that there was no enlargement process. With 126 / 35mm / etc cameras, the imaging surface is smaller, often much smaller, than the viewing surface, so that as the negatives are enlarged when printed, the grain is made visible. If you view a 35mm negative without enlargement (for the sake of argument, let's say you view a 35mm positive, or slide, which has a conceptually easier image to understand) it will appear grainless. If you take a medium format camera and put slide film in it, you can take wonderful shots that are viewable without magnification that also appear grainless. Conversely, if you optically enlarge a Polaroid instant print you will most definitely see grain.

It has nothing to do with the graininess of the film, but whether it is enlarged before viewing. Polaroids are a large enough imaging surface that they do not require enlargement. That's why Polaroids lack apparent grain.

[ Polaroid developed some awe-inspiring technology to make the instant color print possible and a heapful of associated patents. Is it me, or are the patents we hear about these days -- say a regex to validate SSNs -- pitiful in comparison? ]

Re:Properties of Polaroid films

[dbIII]

They also had the pos-neg film - insanely expensive but you could make contact prints from the negatives for multiple copies or enlarge the image to huge sizes. Even with 400 ASA film (more expensive again but more grainy) you could enlarge it quite a lot before you could see the grain, I think it still won out against some 35 mm black and white film due to the much bigger negative.

I used to use it for microscopy and macro photos with a medium format bellows camera.

You can fake a Polaroid

[davidwr]

I once saw a "print to Polaroid" that let you print to Polaroid film the same as you would to paper.

This is not about replacing digital cameras

[Junks Jerzey]

Of COURSE digital cameras supersede the original Polaroid dream of instant pictures. Insert a big "duh" here." This is more about some people liking the quirky qualities of Polaroid film. There's been a resurgence in Polaroid photos on Flickr, and they're coming from people who also own thousands of dollars worth of digital photography gear. It's an artistic novelty, doing low-res pixel art (all the rage in Flash games) or playing music on a scanner.

Instant Results

[SoundGuyNoise]

A lot of pro wrestlers and other athletes make extra money selling photos with their fans for $5 dollars a pop. A Polaroid allows the fan to have the results in their hand right away.

Since it spits the photo out right away, the line keeps moving, more money exchanges hands, and that's what drives the economy, right? If you have to wait for a print out or an e-mail, it slows down the works.

1) Polaroid
2) ???? (Chemical Process)
3) PROFIT!

Re:Instant Results

[jandrese]

Properly set up a digital camera can shoot a picture over to a printer (wifi) and have it ready in mere seconds. The setup costs are much, much higher than Polaroid, but the ongoing costs are much lower, and you don't have to swap out cartridges nearly as often (the printer holding hundreds of sheets while the old Polaroid camaera holds maybe 10 pictures). The digital setup is more bulky and requires power however, so both solutions have tradeoffs.

Re:Instant Results

[Locke2005]

A lot of pro wrestlers and other athletes like porn starlets, for example make extra money selling photos with their fans.

Pictures with Santa

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there is still a need for this. Last year we took the kids to a department store in my hometown that has had a Santa Land since I was a kid. They've always offered pictures with Santa for a few bucks... not the $20-$30 and up that they charge at the big malls, but $5 or less. They always used a Polaroid, but just recently switched to digital.

The only problem is that now the system is so complex that it slows down the entire visit with Santa, that is if 'Mrs. Santa' can even get a picture to print. When we were there, she couldn't, and finally told us to take our own pictures (which was allowed if you bought one, but she gave us our money back since she couldn't print one).

Now, for something like this, even us techno geeks have to admit that a cheap Polaroid with expensive cartridges is a better solution than a digital camera, computer, and printer. Santa at the mall has the digital camera, computer, and printer, but there are also about 4 staff working to support the system, and they even use pagers so you can arrange the time of your visit. And of course those pictures start at about $20.

So I think there is definitely a market for this, in some situations you want an instant picture and don't want to invest the time and money to mess around with a PC, printer, etc.

Bring back 9-track tape and hollerith cards!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who doesn't miss these?

And real front panels and perhaps paper tape...

Way to go...

[rickb928]

'Polaroid' is, of course, a trademark of the Polaroid corporation.

'Instamatic' is a trademark of the Kodak corporation, and refers to 100 and 126 film cameras - not instant anything except maybe loading. The film required processing in the conventional way.

These two terms cannot be used to represent a single product. Ask either corporation. Or former users.

Way to mix up trademarks... Somewhere someone is writhing in agony.

Re:Way to go...

[stonecutter2]

Yeah, you're right. Oh well. Sorry Mr. Kodak and Ms. Polaroid, or something.

Re:Way to go...

[vlm]

'Polaroid' is, of course, a trademark of the Polaroid corporation.

'Instamatic' is a trademark of the Kodak corporation

I think he was trying to make a joke, because Kodak and Polaroid get along about as well as Linux and SCO. "The great Kodak / Polaroid lawsuit". In summary, Kodak didn't just lose but was utterly spanked, and could no longer sell their instant film, and had to mail refunds to the owners of their now unusable cameras. I think everyone alive in the 80s either personally junked their Kodak or was related to someone whom junked their Kodak. I remember goodwill stores had shelves of them... It was fun to take them apart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_camera

Re:Way to go...

[rickb928]

Actually, I had my Kodak up to about 1999 or so. You might be talking about people ditching their Kodamatic cameras.

See, not getting the name right causes all sorts of problems. Next thing you know, we'll be calling him 'W' or something...

Other purposes: scientific devices

[getuid()]

Right now (as in: this very moment) I'm using an x-ray Laue diffraction machine to orient a set of crystals at a given angle. The machine is probably 30 years old, but other than that, it works just great.

This step is crucial in order to permit further experiments I need to do. The problem: I still have approximately about 60 instant-films from Polaroid left ("Type 57" or "Type 53"). But they are discontinued, so when they're gone, there will be none. It's very difficult to get these (actually, it took me more than 6 months of waiting time to get 160 of them), and the only option is to buy another Laue diffraction machine to replace the one we have, which is probably going to cost something with 5 trainling zeros.

Now if somebody was to take over production of "Polaroid Type 57" instant films (they are used for instant photography aswell), that'd solve the problem without us having to spend several hundres of thounsands of euros.

The "normal" polaroid pictures (i.e. those a mere mortal used to take during a holiday) are not exatcly the same as Type 57, but I'll go on a limb here and assert the technology required to manufacture them is similar... so I, for one, welcome our new retro-acting, Polaroid-instant-film-manufacturing overlords :-)

Re:Other purposes: scientific devices

[MoxFulder]

Does anyone make a digital back/lens adapter that you could use to take digital photos instead?

I'm a bit too young to have seen many instruments with Polaroid holders, but my understanding is that there are digital backs for many of them. Sure, they're probably hundreds of thousands of dollars/euros, but a whole lot less expensive than buying a new instrument...

Re:Other purposes: scientific devices

[Anonymous Coward]

the only option is to buy another Laue diffraction machine to replace the one we have

That's hardly your only option. You can modify the machine to use a digital sensor instead of film. There are off the shelf sensors:

http://sales.hamamatsu.com/en/products/solid-state-division/x-ray-flat-panel-sensor.php

so it's mostly a matter of choosing the right one and doing a bit of mechanical engineering to mount it in place of your film camera.

Re:Other purposes: scientific devices

[LWATCDR]

I also think that there are a good number of X-Ray and sonogram machines that used Polaroid Film. I am sure that a lot of them have been replaced but in many clinics in poor areas I will bet they are still being used.

Re:Other purposes: scientific devices

[femtobyte]

Digital sensor retrofits are available... at a price that may not have 5 trailing zeros, but quite likely 4. That's still a lot of 75 cent polaroid sheets to the break even point. So long as the machine is working fine for the original poster's purposes, there are probably better places to spend that kind of money in the lab.

Re:Other purposes: scientific devices

[Anonymous Coward]

It took 60 seconds to find a vendor with T57 B&W in stock at USD $60 for a package of 20.

Re:Other purposes: scientific devices

[BartF]

Can you modify the machine to accept a Polaroid 550 back, Fuji PA-45 back or Fuji PA-145 back?

The pack films in BW and Color are still being manufactured by Fuji, and are quite excellent.

I suspect a modification to the back will be less expensive than a digital retrofit.

Even better would be to fit a Graflok back to the machine, which would allow you to use Polaroid and Fuji Backs, 4x5 film, roll film and Digital Sensors.

Re:Other purposes: scientific devices

[the42ndfl00r]

We used type 53 at school when we learn to use 4x5 cameras. I haven't a clue how they are teaching the class now.

Re:Other purposes: scientific devices

[getuid()]

Thanks for the link. I had a talk with the people in charge at our lab. The bottom line (should have thought of it earlier, actually): we can't use them.

The problem is that we're using back-scattering x-rays at a crystal, and the photo paper is *on* the beam, between the shutter and the sample. So the beam actually first travels through the photo paper before it hits the sample. Putting a CCD there will basically kill the intensity.

There is a technical sollution involving some kind of combined (electronic?) paper/scanner device, at the cost of 15-20 thousand Euros. At the moment, however, we still hope for a new manufacturer to reliably carry on what Polaroid is not...

Re:Other purposes: scientific devices

[getuid()]

Call him and ask him if he can send you a box or two.

Purpose of the game: finding vendors that _actually_ have them on stock and will ship them to you. It took me 60 seconds to find 3 vedors, still upon call, all of them had to inform me that they're sorry, but the items were already sold.

It's not that they're impossible to get. But finding a vendor that will actually have some ready to ship the moment you call them is a matter of luck. And most of the vendors can't tell you when they're going to get more of them -- at some point they will, but it's hard to predict stocks of a discontinued product. If you happen to need those films, you may be lucky and have some within 7 days. Or, you may be less fortunate and have some in 6 months.

More like $2.00+ per shot

[Anonymous Coward]

More like $2.00 on average per shot now! And that's not including the S&H to get the stuff!

The artsy crowd likes them because for several hours afterward, you can manipulate the image and weird effects. One of Peter Gabriel's album covers were down this way.

Chainmail still has uses

[Totenglocke]

I work in a restaurant and we (are supposed to) use chainmail gloves when using sharp blades to prevent accidentally chopping your fingers off. So, I definitely wouldn't say that chainmail is obsolete in every way, it's just obsolete when used as armor due to guns.

Re:Chainmail still has uses

[westlake]

I work in a restaurant and we (are supposed to) use chainmail gloves when using sharp blades to prevent accidentally chopping your fingers off.

A Travel Channel feature showed chainmail gloves and armor being used by cooks aboard a cruise ship. The cuisine may have been four-star, but this was still a real, working vessel, exposed to rough seas and rough handling. It was interesting as well to see them using induction cooktops only.

Re:Chainmail still has uses

[k-macjapan]

Chainmail is also used in some Shartkbite suits. As seen on Dirty Jobs. I forget what season.

4"x5" digital sensors

[davidwr]

Digital backs for 4"X5" cameras are common, but they shave a bit off the edges. A quick search showed 3"x4" with well over 3000dpi is not uncommon.

Depending on your needs, a relatively-low-resolution digital back for a 4x5 can be adequate for proofing.

If there isn't a relatively inexpensive, low-resolution, nearly-full-bleed 4"x5" "proofing back" available now, there probably will be one as soon as the manufacturers realize there is a market for one now that customers can't use Polaroids for test prints any more.

Besides, even at 1200 dpi, a 4x5 image is still over 27 megapixels, which is a great image if you don't crop it too much or blow it up to wall-size.

Re:4"x5" digital sensors

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Digital backs for 4"X5" cameras are common, but they shave a bit off the edges. A quick search showed 3"x4" with well over 3000dpi is not uncommon.

Double-check that those are 3"x4" sensors, and not scanning backs. Scanning backs are, basically, putting a scanner on the back of a camera, so you can guess how slow those operate. (Not to mention you need controlled lighting and a still scene; i.e., good for product photography in the studio, not so good for landscapes, awful for people.)

Livestock feed?

[JSBiff]

You have to feed your horse/oxe/whatever that pulls the buggy/carriage/wagon/cart. Growing feed for enough animals to provide conveyance for Billions of people would require a lot of land and fertilizers (I think). Plus there are also issues of veterinary health care - production of pharmaceuticals for the animals, X-rays/MRI, surgeries, etc. Animals take quite a bit of energy to care for. It might still be less than cars use, however, and a lot of that energy is solar-via-biomass.

But, now, think about the greenhouse emissions (methane) from all the animals that would be necessary, the public health problems of animal manure *everywhere*. From a public health standpoint, even with the problems of CO2 emissions, I feel cars are much less of a disease threat than having billions of extra beasts-of-burden in the world.

Re:Livestock feed?

[SethJohnson]

Not arguing at all with anything you have presented.

The problem really is that automobiles have supported a civic development model that requires lots of energy for transportation. If automobiles had never been invented, the hassle that horses are would have inspired a different type of development that featured more people walking and clumping of population around train stations.

So, yeah, it's unrealistic to replace cars with horses NOW that we've strewn our houses and jobs all over the landscape.

Seth

Re:Livestock feed?

[d3ac0n]

So, yeah, it's unrealistic to replace cars with horses NOW that we've strewn our houses and jobs all over the landscape.

No, it's always been unrealistic.

The reason that cars took off in the way they did was not just because they were more convenient. One of the main reasons the car replaced the horse was due to cleanliness. In large cities, (which already existed at the turn of the century) the pollution problem of all those animals sharing space with humans was a major major headache, and had only been getting worse as the industrial revolution took off and cities became even more crowded as people moved out of the country and into the city for work.

Motor Vehicles came along at just the right time to relieve the animal burden and speed up transportation of food and materials to the growing cities. The steam trains of the day simply could not transport enough people, food, and materials. Even if they could, once in the city all that stuff still had to be moved around. In some cases many miles across the heart of the city. Horses and Oxen could not do it.

So even then there was no going back. We had reached the limit of what beasts of burden could provide. We were at the end of that stage in our development as a species and as a society and needed to move onward and upward away from messy animals.

While it's fun to play "what if" and have nice romantic fantasies about what might have been, the fact is that things played out the way they did because they COULD NOT have played out in any other way and have our society exist as it does today. The steps we took were critically necessary that they happen WHEN and HOW they did. No other option was viable. Sorry.

Re:Livestock feed?

[Faerunner]

Feed = meadow grazing supplemented by locally grown grain in most climates, and hay in the winter. Unless you insist on buying corn feed grown by agribusiness, I'd say feed is far less expensive than gasoline, oil, transmission fluid, brake fluid, antifreeze, and wiper fluid. And you don't need much land to feed a single horse. Animals don't need as many drugs as people do. And measure a vet against the mechanics' shops that exist for our cars.

Greenhouse emissions? More like free fuel! If more people owned cows, I'm pretty sure the efforts to easily turn waste methane into a fuel source would be coming along a lot faster. Manure = fertilizer. Scoop it up and take it home! Horse manure isn't as great as pig, but it'll do in a pinch. And while I see your worries about public health, at this moment there is probably a worldwide film of spit, chewed gum, blood, snot, other bodily fluids, and animal feces on our sidewalks and we still haven't been killed by Chewing Gum flu. I'd argue that horse shit is preferable to find in the streets, since horses and people share very few diseases, whereas spit on the sidewalk could carry any number of human pathogens.

Re:Livestock feed?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Feed = meadow grazing supplemented by locally grown grain in most climates, and hay in the winter."

That's great if you live out in the country. What about the millions of people who live (and must live) in cities (why *must* they live in cities? Well, even in a world with cars, cities are practical, but in a world where everyone travels by horse, you need to be close to the other people you depend upon economically and socially -grocers, butchers, bakers, barbers/salons, police, fire, clergy/houses of worship, factories and food processing facilities, clothes makers and retailers).

"Unless you insist on buying corn feed grown by agribusiness."

So, what other option would people in the cities have, exactly?

"And you don't need much land to feed a single horse."

Who's talking about a single horse? Take whatever is required for a single horse. Now, multiply that by several hundred million horses for the entire country (and compared to other countries, the USA has a relatively small population per land area; we may actually have enough land to make it work in the USA, and Canada probably does - they are even less populated than the USA, but at the same time, much of that land is arctic and maybe isn't good for raising livestock). But, now try to do that in India or China, or even Europe. People never seem to think about what works on a small scale, might not work as well on a scale of hundreds of millions, or billions. There's 6+ billion people alive on the face of the earth right now. You really think horses are practical for that many people?

Honestly, bicycles would be closer to a 'solution' for people living in cities - I believe in India and China, bikes are actually a primary form of transport for millions of people, aren't they?

Re:Livestock feed?

[tftp]

Feed = meadow grazing supplemented by locally grown grain in most climates, and hay in the winter.

Horses require a lot of pasture, and they tend to eat it down to bare earth, so you must move horses around. Horses can be economically viable only in a small rural setting where there is plenty of pastures and few horses. "Hay in the winter" needs to be stored and transported, and stables are not any smaller than a garage for a car (and you can't park the horse on your driveway or at the curb and forget about it for a week.) Horses also are relatively delicate creatures, can get diseases, can get overworked, and ultimately die; then they need to be disposed of. Sick and weak horses can not work, instead they must be cared for until they get better (or just the opposite.) It's a lot of work, far more than turning a key in a car (or pressing the POWER button in Prius.)

And you don't need much land to feed a single horse

It would be advisable to leave the city for a day and observe reality:

Horses require at least 2 acres per animal for a good exercise and forage area in good forage country. The stocking rate in southern Oklahoma probably varies from 2 to 5 acres per horse on improved pasture that is well managed.

So no, your 1/16" acre backyard won't do it (and you won't like it anyway.)

I'd say feed is far less expensive than gasoline, oil, transmission fluid, brake fluid, antifreeze, and wiper fluid.

From the same source:

A well-nourished horse will consume about 2 percent of its body weight per day on a dryweight basis. Thus, a 1,000-pound horse will require approximately 20 pounds of forage or feed per day, or almost 4 tons of dry matter yearly per horse.

Today hay prices are about $150 per ton, which means you have to spend at least $600 plus transportation - say, $1,000 in total. This money would buy you today 400 gallons of gasoline, and with 30 mpg you could drive 12,000 miles on it (32 miles per day at 60 mph.) A horse would be totally wasted, if not dead, even at half the speed, and though it surely can walk that distance every day you probably have other interests in life than walking your horse :-)

Oh, by the way, your horse will want to eat and drink even if it is not working much. Your car needs gas only when you drive it.

I'd argue that horse shit is preferable to find in the streets, since horses and people share very few diseases, whereas spit on the sidewalk could carry any number of human pathogens.

Firstly, presence or absence of horses is orthogonal to the presence of spit and other human waste on streets. Secondly, horse manure is a breeding ground for insects which can and do carry diseases of all kinds. A fly can be sitting on a pile of horse manure in one moment and then on your forehead just a second later. I don't see much of health benefits from such an arrangement.

Re:Livestock feed?

[Hognoxious]

On the other hand, when a car gets beyond repair you can't eat it.

Best Halloween Costume Ever.

[DarthVain]

Saw at bar.

One guy dressed up as Pinocchio, was really well done.

His buddy dressed up as the guy from Memento with a short sleeved white shirt, and black maker tattoos all over his arms and what you could see of his chest.

In the front shirt pocket of his shirt was a photo of his buddy dressed up at Pinocchio.

On the back he had written: "Don't believe his lies!"

Fscking Brilliant! :)

+1 Cutter

[Anonymous Coward]

Beautiful reference. I was thinking the same thing. I wish I had some mod points.

35mm

[Nom du Keyboard]

35mm isn't dead yet, so why should Polaroid be? I do not agree that you must be forced into always accepting the latest technologies -- despite Microsoft's wishes to the contrary.

Re:35mm

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when has Microsoft ever offered the latest technologies? They've held computing back for over twenty years. By the way, have you ever seen a Kodachrome transparency projected onto the entire side of a house? Now that's a sistine for you.

Re:35mm

[ebvwfbw]

35mm isn't dead yet, so why should Polaroid be? I do not agree that you must be forced into always accepting the latest technologies -- despite Microsoft's wishes to the contrary.

Dude, I owned a number of polaroid cameras over the years. From the one you tore out of the back to the later models. They were great if you had no alternative. The quality was marginal and it was the best it would ever be the first few days. I have some now that look like they were colored in with a crayon. Blurry, blotchy and seemingly from a palette of just 256 colors. Maybe even fewer. My 35 MM negatives, slides and pictures are as good as they were back in the 1970s. I still use 35MM for under water photography. Everything else is Digital.
So why keep the polaroid around? There is no niche it fills. If you want a picture on site, you can bring along a color photo printer. I think you would have very few interested in this product. Guys like me would make fun of anyone buying one.

Tagged Redundant

[Anna Merikin]

FujiFilm Company in Japan, not a small company, makes film for Polaroid cameras which is available from www.freestyle.com .

Hello? It's about ART not TECH...

[kaizendojo]

The reasoning behind this has nothing to do with efficiency, quality, etc. it's about artistic sensibility. For the same reason people love the fixed focus Lomo Cameras. Many of these photos are slightly blurry, over saturated and many of them hang in galleries and museums or are featured in priceless private collections. Poloroid film has a similar quality to it and can be quite effective in the right hands. It tends to shift to red and yellow casts which endow the subject with an instant retro look and feel.

Sorry, but some times, technology ISN'T the most important consideration. I own about 4 of the old bellows rangefinder models and would love to see film become available for them. Right now they are just art/conversation pieces; I imagine if I could CREATE art pieces using them, it would be invigorating. Not being able to "fix it in the mix" with Photoshop would force me to work harder in composition and choice of subject at the time of the shot.

Self-Correction (!)

[Anna Merikin]

The correct address for Freestyle Photographic Supplies is www.freestylephoto.bix instead of the squatters' site I incorrectly listed.

Sorry.

Re:Self-Correction (!)

[WMD_88]

You still got it wrong ;) www.freestylephoto.biz. In any case, they don't appear to make Polaroid 600-compatible film, only 660, which doesn't fit the 600. I still have my 600, but no film, as I wasn't aware of the discontinuance at the time. :(

fuji instax

[Anonymous Coward]

You cat get these on ebay from eastern asia.

Missing In Action: The Giant Polaroid

[mpapet]

Few of you probably know of the giant portrait camera(s) Polaroid built many years ago but I'm sure you have viewed images taken from them. This is probably the last, good, niche for the instant film process. I will stay consistent to my retro-digital geek cred and inform the ignorant that digital capture lacks cinematic quality. In 10 words or less, flesh tones+lighting reproduction are not as appealing and generally impossible to reproduce.

http://www.bwphotopro.com/Site/Trausch.html

I imagine in about a decade a 'brilliant' photographer will 'discover' the cinematic qualities of film after the average consumer is already used to mega-pixel digital cameras and low-res output devices producing cartoon-like images.

They should abandon their small camera dream and go giant format. I know it sounds crazy, but the artist set will demand it when they see a great print that can't possibly be had in the same amount of time with digital. High-quality opticskk are most likely to be available at the giant-size too.

That's my lunatic rant for the day.

Re:Missing In Action: The Giant Polaroid

[Anonymous Coward]

In 10 words or less:

..... and then 13 words. Nice.

Re:Chainmail still has uses - indeed!

[schon]

Chainmail still has uses

Indeed. Chainmail got me laid!

(don't ask. :)

Third Worlders

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an annual mission trip to Guatamala at our local church. They used to always take polaroid cameras because these people, *love* having the opportunity to have a picture of themselves taken. People would line up for blocks on the "polaroid" day waiting for their picture. The last couple of years, they'll have to leave their cameras behind, because they can't find the film!

Re:Third Worlders

[Hognoxious]

You can take one of a woman so that when her as yet unborn son sends the son's father back in time he can find her and save her from being killed by a robot. And then shag her. Or something.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Give www.poladroid.net a spin. Digital Cameras, meet your Polaroid cousin!

I'm sure it was a mix of both

[davidwr]

If Polaroid was smart, they would've used a combination of patents and trade secrets to protect what was once their bread-and-butter.

Still very useful for large format photography

[LordByronStyrofoam]

4x5 cameras don't have 'through the lens metering'. Just about the only way to be sure you got the right exposure is to expose a polaroid 4x5 sheet in a special polaroid 4x5 sheet holder. This lets you check focus, exposure, see if there's any vignetting, etc. If it looks right on the polaroid, then stick in a sheet of 'regular' film and get your negative/transparency image.

Re:Still very useful for large format photography

[femtobyte]

Actually, you can get TTL light meters for large format cameras, with a light sensor that can be placed anywhere on the ground-glass viewing screen of the camera. These have been around at least since the early '80's, when the Sinarsix metering system was the hot new technology being adopted by photographers like Ansel Adams. While proofing with Polaroids was highly useful earlier, it's no longer a necessity for large format work.

Re:Still very useful for large format photography

[Hognoxious]

4x5 cameras don't have 'through the lens metering'.

You don't need TTL metering if you have a basic clue of physics and are even slightly numerate.

The solution to your dilemma.

[retchdog]

Carry one and only one of these: http://www.amazon.com/Toshiba-SD-M3203B3-32MB-Card-e310/dp/B00006HXGY

Printers

[sherriw]

I understand the attachment to Polaroid. I have hundreds of digital pictures still in folders called develop_these on my desktop. The real thing we are lacking is a cheap, efficient, quality photo printer who's paper/ink refills don't cost you your soul.

Re:Printers

[drinkypoo]

What you're missing is a digital photo album, and some backups. Paper is volatile. Data is forever.

Re:Printers

[sherriw]

Not if you want to make scrapbooks or put them in frames.

Does anyone remember the superior Kodak system?

[professorguy]

Back when Polaroid was king, Kodak introduced their own version of an instant camera. It was vastly superior to Polaroid's.

Polaroids had a flat glossy surface. Touch the picture and the fingerprint permanently ruined the photo. Kodak's photos had a textured surface which rejected fingerprints.

Polaroids had a cheesy paper frame. Handling the photo often caused it to disintegrate. Kodak's photos were monolithic plastic slabs--the picture was just an area of color in the middle of the slab.

So why didn't Kodak's instant film take over the market. Well, what do you think a company, who was losing the race due to an inferior product, did? That's right, into court they went and lawyers prevented the technology from improving.

Remind you of any other analogous situations?

Re:Does anyone remember the superior Kodak system?

[ebvwfbw]

I had one of these too. I can't find any of my pictures that I know were taken with it though. Seems to me I had to send it back to Kodak or Polaroid would come after me or something. I don't remember the wording but I remember it was very threatening. I filled in the warranty card so they know I had one. I stopped using my polaroid cameras at that point. Then threw them out when I moved out of the house. I was all 35 mm SLR by then. What memories.

That Smell, That Polaroid Smell

[BigBlueOx]

Nothing ever smelled like a Polaroid when you ejected the picture and all those wonderful chemicals got squeezed all over the film. Ahhhhh. Memories.

I love the smell of Polaroids in the morning.

Easy megaprofit: Polaroid film for Memento sequel

[xmark]

1. Make retro Polaroid film packs.
2. Offer guy sitting in Hollywood coffee shop with laptop 10% of gross to write three-page treatment. Make sure plot depends on LOTS of Polaroids.
3. Text Christopher Nolan's agent: "got a treatment for Memento II that's hotter than Paris Hilton's ass at a Bikram barbecue...wanna put some eyeballs on it?"
4 ... (mysterious H-wood black box processes + various drugs and Malibu parties)
5. Call travel agent and book vay-kay in Bali. Or hell, just BUY Bali.

Analog is better proof.

[arthurpaliden]

The beauty is that a an analog picture, negative/positive or polaroid, will always be believed over the digital one.

Now on sale at American Apparel...

[nausea_malvarma]

Hipsters love anything old and outdated because nobody uses them any more, they create a false sense of authenticity, and owning something outdated makes you look poor. I have total confidence that this company will make millions off of hipsters. I know some who still listen to cassettes (because they like how "tangible" they are).

Same thing happened with Analog Tape

[aitikin]

This is pretty much the same thing that happened to Analog Audio tape. I'm not talking cassettes, I'm talking the 2" variety. There used to be a bunch of companies that made it, but then digital came out and started to dominate the industry, now there's a huge niche of analog tape lovers in the recording world, and only two companies that still manufacture the tape. Frankly, this sounds like a great thing to invest in, if I weren't a poor hungry college student with no money whatsoever...

Memento would not be the same...

[nickrout]

Memento just would not be the same if Guy Pearce|Leonard had to attach the camera to a digital printer, print out the picture and THEN write all over the pic. He'd have forgotten what the pic was about before he got all that done. I suppose he would have had some i-phone like device and spoken the notes into the inbuilt voice recorder. But the movie just would not be the same!

Dental film (for scientific devices)

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it be possible to use normal film covered in black plastic (like dental film)? A bit harder to develop than polaroid, but still easy.

Bet

[fishbowl]

I'm willing to bet that you cannot create an image by any process that, projected on a screen, will fool me into believing it's a Kodachrome 64 slide.

You would want more pixels in that case.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Please explain, in scientific terms, the advantage of a larger sensor. For the purposes of this explanation, do not assume that a larger sensor has more pixels. The lens size is important (larger == better), and the number of pixels is important, but I suspect that packing those pixels into a smaller size will improve picture quality.

I think what you're asking me to do is, in practice, quite flawed. The whole point of having a 4x5" sensor would be to have a hell of a lot more pixels than existing camera sensors. Assuming equivalent pixel densities, this would be 6x as many pixels as a 56x36mm medium format sensor, 14x as many pixels as full-frame 35mm sensors, and 33x times as many pixels as APS-C sized sensors. Compared to a Phase One 40MP 56x36mm sensor, an equivalent 4x5" sensor would have 234 megapixels.

Think of it this way: in the world of film, the advantage of large format over small format comes down to a very simple factor: for a given print size, large format film needs a lot less enlargement. An 8x10" print from 35mm film is an 8.5x linear enlargement; in terms of area, it's 71.7x. The same print from 4x5" film is a 2x linear enlargement. That means finer grain and better tonality.

This logic, however, doesn't translate to digital if you keep the number of pixels constant, because the pixel count puts a hard upper boundary on the resolution of the prints you wish to make. An 8x10" print from a 39 megapixel 4x5" sensor is not going to have more resolution than one from a 39MP 56x36mm one. It may (perhaps!) have better color and less noise, but if that's all you were after, you wouldn't make a sensor with 6x the area!

So yeah, it's fair to say that I implicitly assumed that a 4x5" digital sensor would have more pixels.

Re:Who is Jesus?

[Falconhell]

Didnt you spit the dummy and quit slashdot a few weeks ago, or was that just a pleasant dream?

Yeah, sure..

[denzacar]

Cameras having NOTHING to do with art.

Particularly the kind that creates an actual physical piece of art with a press of a button.
No. Nothing to do with art.
Nothing at all.
Most definitely.

Re:Yeah, sure..

[sexconker]

Protip: Art is for display, not use.

Re:Chainmail still has uses - indeed!

[Locke2005]

Chainmail got me laid! Are you sure it was the chainmail, and not the huge codpiece?

Authenticity

[tenco]

Can't digital photos (even with watermarks) be more easily forged than polaroid ones? Are polaroid photos even forgable?

Re:Authenticity

[harl]

Of course they can be. The 30 second idea I had was simply taking an old polaroid cutting out the picture and putting a different one in. Or taking the whole top off and putting a digital print over it. Is it good? No but honestly neither is the question. When was the last time anyone dealt with a forged photo? It's movie plot panic and security theater.

Best of both worlds

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a big opportunity for someone to write an iPhone app that slowly fades in your pictures from a white screen over a period of two minutes.

truth

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want an accurate image of what a model looks like, a polaroid is more trustworthy than a digital image and they were still using them because of that in an episode of some American model show I was watching. Does any picture in a magazine actually look much like the subject?

I had to train in photoshop use as part of a course and it was depressing just how much time was devoted to transforming a real person into a virtual model, which then gave women poor self-esteem and eating disorders.

What I miss is something digital can't do...

[Kazoo the Clown]

I wish these guys would remanufacture Polaroid Vectographic Film. While you can take digital stereo photos, and you can display them via various means on digital output devices, but the non-powered handheld way that the Vectograph displays stereo images is unique. See Here

Polaroid instant film is pretty mundane in comparison, though I've seen interesting experimental works done with 8x10 sheets of Polaroid instant that are a little interesting, anyway. I think you can peel the emulsion off and stick it to stuff. Try doing that with a digital camera...

Fuji Instax?

[Anonymous Coward]

Polaroids are gone, for now at lest.. but instant photos aren't. People who want the fix can get it through the Fuji Instax cameras. They don't have quite the nostalga value of Polaroids, but the results are pretty similar.

Because the engine of the carriage is running 24/7

[SmallFurryCreature]

First, the horse needs to be fed wether it is used or not. It also needs a place to run, which means costly ground being taken up.

Carriages ain't all that light. If you want to go long distances you need to change horses meaning spare horses need to be fed 24/7 just in case someone might need them.

Horse fuel is very low density, shipping it all takes a LOT of horses. Car food on the other hand is extremely dense and thousands of cars can be fed with by just one big mother car.

Fuji still makes instant film

[yora]

Fuji films still manufactures instant films. I live in India, and over here instant films are still quite popular for id card photographs, etc. Check out www.bhphotovideo.com to find Fuji films which would be compatible with polaroid cameras..

We actually used this in an event.

[bronney]

This is not "funny". We actually do this during a client event and this was the quickest and most reliable way to ID guests for later use.

We cannot use digital, or even digital with printers because 300 guests are waiting in line, and we need to ID each guest immediately one after another. Polaroid has its use.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bronney/3292541935/in/set-72157603564601858/

Re:Hello? It's about ART not TECH...

[m50d]

Poloroid film has a similar quality to it and can be quite effective in the right hands. It tends to shift to red and yellow casts which endow the subject with an instant retro look and feel.

The thing about this argument is: if that's what you want, you can get the same effect instantly in photoshop. Or you could colour shift in the opposite direction, perhaps giving a futuristic look and feel. Or you could do billions of other things.

If you lack the discipline to be effective with a whole paintbox, you're not going to be a good artist with just one colour either.

Re:They're called pixel-vision cameras

[Tetsujin]

Holy fuck man, get with the times.

Your fantasy world of film and chemicals and inferior picture quality is long gone.

It's all about the CCDs and the LCDs now, baby.

Now, are you trolling, or are you serious?

If you're serious, you should know that Polaroid film wasn't limited to [i]just[/i] their instant cameras. For instance, there was Polaroid film for 4x5 cameras. With decent optics, 20 square inches of film gives you a level of detail only the best digital cameras can approach.

Re:Hello? It's about ART not TECH...

[Tetsujin]

Poloroid film has a similar quality to it and can be quite effective in the right hands. It tends to shift to red and yellow casts which endow the subject with an instant retro look and feel.

The thing about this argument is: if that's what you want, you can get the same effect instantly in photoshop. Or you could colour shift in the opposite direction, perhaps giving a futuristic look and feel. Or you could do billions of other things.

If you lack the discipline to be effective with a whole paintbox, you're not going to be a good artist with just one colour either.

What I've heard from folks who know photography, and know Photoshop, is that the end result isn't the same. Not being much of a photographer myself I'm not inclined to tell 'em they're wrong. :) At the very least, to simulate an effect you first need to quantify it. You could put all kinds of effort into simulating marginally defective film or an old analog synthesizer - but if those old methods get you exactly the result you want, why bother with simulating them?

I think there's something to be said for the way you get to a certain effect. The process you go through to get your end result. This is why, for instance, I'm interested in stop-motion animation despite the fact that my PC is probably powerful enough to render 3-D animated shorts... (It's not as though I'm not interested in 3-D animation, either - I used to hate CG in films but now I'm more appreciative of it - I just happen to have a love of physical craftsmanship, too.)

And you can keep your food pills, too! XD

Great for the 1960s

[ebvwfbw]

The responses I have seen are seemingly by people that have never owned a Polaroid. I owned the original one that you tore out of the back to the more modern ones. What most people think of as a SX-70 type.

They were great in the 1960s and into the 1970s. Then in a word they "Suck!" Looking back through my pictures I found that even the lowest grade plastic throw away Kodak cartridge based camera, I have superior pictures today. My Polariod pictures are ok, but remind me of someone that took a picture with a Kodak camera and then colored it in with crayons. Blurry, color is blotchy and suck. My pictures with the Kodak taken the same day of the same subjects at almost the same time are just plain better.

Which brings me to my point. Why? Why make it so people can take and preserve sucky pictures again? What next, bring back Lava lamps? Dippity doo? Stick a fork in it, it's done.

Back when I had access to a decent darkroom. . .

[aoeu]

I had a Garfield doll and an Odie doll. . .