Slashdot Mirror
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 "They want to recast an outdated production process in an abandoned Polaroid factory for an age that has fallen for digital pictures because they think people still have room in their hearts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.'"
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.
#DeleteChrome
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?
Already exists.
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.
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.
Are you adequate?
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...
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.
'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
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
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
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
I only mod funny =D
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?
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.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!