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 "They want to recast an outdated production process in an abandoned Polaroid factory for an age that has fallen for digital pictures because they think people still have room in their hearts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

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

[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

[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

[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

[RandoX]

He could have some kind of memento to remind him.

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

[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

[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

[Sponge Bath]

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

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

[perryizgr8]

How'd you remember your login/password here?

cookies.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[rhyder128k]

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

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

[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.

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?

[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...

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?

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?

[commodoresloat]

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

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.

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

[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.

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?

[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:Stopping making?

[dblackshell]

Not everybody on /. is a native English speaker.

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.)

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...

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?

Tattoos for memory restoration

[Benanov]

"Don't trust the skull."

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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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? ]

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.

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...

[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

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 :-)

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.)

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! :)

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.

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.

Re:Chainmail still has uses - indeed!

[schon]

Chainmail still has uses

Indeed. Chainmail got me laid!

(don't ask. :)

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?

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).

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...

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.

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!

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.

Re:Livestock feed?

[Hognoxious]

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

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/