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 "They want to recast an outdated production process in an abandoned Polaroid factory for an age that has fallen for digital pictures because they think people still have room in their hearts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

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.

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: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.

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.

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?

Perhaps the original instant-film photograph?

[davidwr]

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

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

[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: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.

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: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: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: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.)

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.

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.

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!

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.

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).

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: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: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.

Authenticity

[tenco]

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

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/