Slashdot Mirror
Polaroid: This Time It's Digital
MrSeb writes "Long before Facebook and Twitpic, photos were shared by simply handing someone a print. No camera made this easier than the once-ubiquitous Polaroid. Nothing represented instant gratification better in the film era than having a print develop before your eyes, ready to hand out in a minute. Unfortunately for Polaroid, the advent of digital photography sounded the death knell for its iconic instant print cameras. A brief reprieve in the form of inexpensive sticker-printing versions was ended by the cellphone camera revolution. Now, after a decade in remission, Polaroid has returned with a full-up digital camera that incorporates instant printing technology. The Polaroid Z340 is a 14MP digital with an integrated Zink-enabled (Zero Ink) printer. In a nostalgic touch, the new camera prints 3×4-inch images, the same size as the original Polaroid film cameras. Remarkably, all this fits in a one-pound, seven-ounce package, about the same weight as a mid-range DSLR."
That sounds good and I'm glad they're back. Though I wonder if coming back with an old fashioned analog polaroid might not sell as well. "The polaroid" was a name for a type of picture, a digital print isn't going to feel that unique.
I have a soft spot for Polaroid cameras, having grown up back when they were all the rage (just after the dinosaurs died). The Land Camera was a lot of fun, back in the day. But, really, the only thing unique about this new camera is the printing, and no one wants to do that anymore.
The whole point of printing, way back then, was simply because it was the only way to share your images. That's no longer an issue. Even my mom's phone can send and receive photos. A print can only be shared with one person, while a digital image can be shared with an arbitrary number of people. There's just no advantage to being able to instantly print in this form factor.
#DeleteChrome
My first temptation was to scoff and say this is the digital age, why print them out.
Then I remembered 2 years ago, I got my dad this sony dyesub (Sony DPP-FP95, I think 97 is the newest). It prints pics perfectly, as good as the store. And because it's dyesub, it's superior to inkjet in every way: the dots blend together and aren't discrete, it has a clearcoat so no smudging, and the toner is dry on plastic so no printhead to dry out after a period of nonuse. It's the first digital gadget he really uses and actually loves: after every damn trip he sits down and make pics after pics. I know, I get sent a packet every so often with the sony branding.
If this polaroid is the same way, good on them. I can barely keep my digital pics organized, I don't expect older people to really grok photo organizing software either.
A real-life example - many years ago, My girlfriend and I used a Polaroid to manufacture child pornography of ourselves and some of our friends (we were all 15 at the time). It was a crime most heinous, but high-school kids don't deserve to be charged and have their lives ruined because of it.
But Ethanol, why not just have them printed at a drugstore?
I was a film developer at a drugstore. All images are archived (yes, even at the "print your own" kiosks) and every picture on a roll of film is seen by the developer, because we have to manually correct for CMY, density, and a host of other factors for maximum customer satisfaction - which means that your trick of taking a few "normal" pics followed by a bunch of nudes and finally more "normal" pics doesn't keep your dirty secrets from us. Fortunately, I saw a lot of nudes but never saw anything questionable.
Unfortunately, at 20$ for 30 sheets of the special photo paper it needs, I don't see it being successful.
I guess they're probably trying to use the classic inkjet printer selling scheme, where the printer is cheap but the cartridges are expensive... though their camera is 300$.
It can also print just 25 photos with its battery which is not clear if it's removable or not - strange number considering the paper is sold in packs of 30.
It's just a brand name now that's licensed out. Edwin Land's company is long gone.
A statement of the form "nothing makes it easier than (brand)" is ad copy. It's a statement which means "we can't say it's better than the others, so we're going to make a statement which implies it's better than the others while it may only mean that all brands are basically the same" (after all, if they're the same, then nothing else is better).
Isn't it cheaper and easier just to freeze your relatives in carbonite? That way you can preserve your memories forever and avoid all the nasty Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners.
Plus, you're limited to a tiny print compared with a small printer.
As I understand it, you can enlarge a digital photo later on a full-size printer.
Also it's so that Roy Batty can chew out Leon for leaving behind his precious photos.