Slashdot Mirror
FujiFilm Discontinues Last Film For Millions of Polaroid Cameras (fastcompany.com)
harrymcc writes: Polaroid stopped making film for its instant cameras in 2008. Thanks to Polaroid-compatible film from FujiFilm, many fans of instant photography kept on shooting with classic models such as the Big Shot, which Andy Warhol used in the 1970s. But FujiFilm has announced that it's discontinuing production of peel-apart instant film, which means that an array of cameras which survived Polaroid's own exit from instant photography will finally be orphaned. Could this be a job for the Impossible Project?
Polaroid does make instant film and cameras - http://www.polaroid.com/products/category/cameras-and-film/instant-cameras-film
The Impossible Project already produces it: https://shop.the-impossible-pr...
Hipsters love it.
I am surprised there is still a market for instant cameras or instant film outside of hardcore enthusiasts, what with digital cameras being so prevalent and there being many easy ways to print directly from a digital camera with no PC involved (and even plenty of places that will print photos from a digital camera onto archive-grade photo paper)
Kids love it. They take a picture and see it fade into view like magic. Polaroid makes a whole line of instant cameras with film.
You mean a trip into town to a Kodak kiosk? Or filling up your crappy home printer with expensive color ink and rapidly decomposing paper? Or buying a specialised photography printer? Or keeping it all on your phone or on the cloud, to be ultimately lost in digital limbo forever.
Polaroid performs the same function now that it did 40 years ago: Instant, physical photographs, in your hand after one click (plus a wait). Digital does not provide this. In fact, due to the ubiquity and commodification of digital photographs, I'd argue that physical photograph have become more valuable now than ten years ago.
People want pictures of their kids, grandkids, pets, and possibly other halves. At some point they're going to want them off their computers and into the real world. There is a market for instant, physical cameras and Fuji, like the rest of the film companies, are throwing it all away in an effort to chase the low-end, ultra commodified, zero-profit digital camera landscape.
One TV ad campaign, showing a new generation what a physical photo album is, and making it desirable again, will make the next film company billions. Fuji will not be that company.
Probably the same people who buy vinyl records...
But you don't carry your printer with you all the time.
Polaroid instant cameras were convenient, but that's about it. If the fixative wasn't applied just right - even in the auto-fixing cameras, you'd get sloppy consistency, fading colors and off-hues.
Within a very short distance of home - and many tourist destinations - are places where I can jack my phone in, upload pictures and have plenty of good-quality photos to share around within an hour. And one thing no instant-shot camera could provide: multiple copies.
If you're really into print-on-the-spot, as I recall, Polaroid even has a portable photo printer and it's probably not a whole lot slower than timing the developer on an instant-shot film.
I thought it was cool in 1976 because I could watch the photo appear "instantly" instead of waiting a week (three day rush was extra) for the Fotomat to develop them. The one's I have left in a shoebox are now all faded or darkened to be unviewable.
My kid today finds the instant camera on his smartphone to be preferable. It's much less expensive for him to shoot dozens of images and throw them away until he gets just the one he wants. He can then display them on any screen in the house, even the one on the fridge.
Kids love it.
Kids don't have to pay for the film.
They take a picture and see it fade into view like magic. Polaroid makes a whole line of instant cameras with film.
TFA is about the older type of instant film whereby you pull a sandwich of film and chemicals out of the camera, wave it around for an approximate period of time based on temperature then peel off the print and try to find somewhere to safely dispose of the chemical-soaked negative. I can't really think of a use-case for that apart from nostalgia.
The newer system, where you just get a blank print that fades into view and then 'fixes' itself is more fun and more practical (but still not as practical as a phone cam).
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
if you want to take dirty pictures and keep them under control instant cameras are a very safe alternative to using a phone that then automatically upload it to the cloud replicates to all your devices etc. etc.
Kids don't have to pay for the film.
Yeah, I was into photographic equipment as a kid - not so much the photography, because I couldn't afford film and development. But the equipment fascinated me, I'd pick up old pieces at car boot sales - again, for less money than developing a 36-exposure film would cost in those days.
Chasing the "low-end"?
Yeah. Because Polaroid was high-end. Not. It was the very definition of "low-end" photography.
Edison wax cylinders, son. Edison wax cylinders.
If their efforts end up anything like their non-peel-apart lineup, then it's truly doomed. I have an old Land camera and a 600 series camera that uses the integrated battery pack in the cartridge (and develops in open air). The film from Impossible for the 600 is dreadful. I've gone through 3-4 cartridges and got nothing but a blurry, faded-looking mess. At best.
You also can't point/shoot/eject/watch-it-develop like you could the original Polaroid. The Impossible film remains sensitive to light for at least 10-15 seconds if not longer, requiring hacks and tricks to eject it into either a box or under shade to make it develop properly at all. A real pain, all for vintage pictures that look like they're 40 years old the minute they fully develop.
A shame really, as they have been at it for quite a number of years now. I would have hoped they could have recreated a more faithful and reliable facsimile of the original film. I know some people have reported good results, but I was never able to come close
Never was true, never would be true.
In same cases, analogue photography is easier to fake than the skills needed for photoshopping, and just as difficult to analyse and debunk, if not more.
If you see something, take a photo. The pre-planning necessary to submit a modified form of that photo without the original being present or seized is so huge as to make anything other than deliberate set up impossible.
Your photos - digital or analogue - are prima facie evidence in most courts. Same for CCTV, and so on. And the penalties for deliberately crafting false evidence are incredibly severe to prevent any suggestion of misuse.
But that a Polaroid is in any way fighting for freedom is ludicrous. But yet everyone already carries a phone with greater resolution, colour accuracy, etc. And the fact that "random member of public X" has the same photo as "random member of public Y" means much more than anything to do with the devices they used to do so.
Canon Selphy range are compact dye sublimation printers with options of battery backs for portable printing with a range of printing options including PictBridge, off memory cards and USB sticks or direct off the phone using WiFi from iOS and Android.
The chemicals involved in making sensors are even more nightmarish, and have been just as poorly disposed of.
and here's a thought. digital camera sensors are likely produced at a greater rate than film was ever produced and developed.
When Hostess declared bankruptcy, many people were upset because they grew up eating Twinkies. However, as adults, far fewer people eat them. So of course sales were slow. Instant cameras are the same way. There's a certain nostalgia factor that makes people want to see these things still produced, but on a day-to-day basis people are using digital cameras. Technology and cost will always introduce new products and after a generation of nostalgia the old products disappear forever. I doubt someone born in 2016 will ever care about polaroids.
This is kind of the trouble with closed, privately held IP. When the company goes, so does the product, and the technology behind it.
It could almost make one believe in Democratic Socialism.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
For you youngsters out there, Polaroid was how we used to have to take pictures of our dicks, back in the days before cell phones. This is the sad end of an era.
You are welcome on my lawn.
LOL If you saw my home you'd think I'm a photography buff. I'm not. I just like old cameras. They all work, I've actually shot pictures with them all. However, I'm about as artistic as is required to make stick figures.
Well, that's not true. I've taken loads of classes (required, mostly) over the years and I can draw and paint and whatnot. I even do 'okay' at it. Left to my own devices, I can't think of a thing to draw or paint. It's much the same with a camera. I travel, a lot. I don't generally take a lot of pictures. If I do, they look like post-cards. They're unimaginative and just a picture that's descriptive in nature.
I've got a bunch of newer digital cameras. I buy one that looks interesting and use it for a week before I just get bored. Then I stop carrying it and use my cell phone - if I take any pictures at all. But, I even keep those cameras around. I like interesting, tactile, and mechanical things. I've got a giant old antique globe that fills up a good chunk of room. It's useless but kind of neat. I've got a few older telescopes, again - I don't even watch the stars. There are some neat old cameras on shelves and bookcases. Why? I think they're kind of neat.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You obviously haven't seen my girlfriend's purse. I have no idea what's in there or how such a small person carries that much weight with 'em everywhere they go. There's probably a printer in there. There's probably a few bricks in there. She asks me to get something out of it and I just go bring it to her and let her retrieve it herself.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
These are the same people who buy typewriters made before they were born.
Sounds like Linux on the desktop.
With so few Polaroid cameras out there, you'd think the remaining Fuji stock would last a while yet.
... rather than summarily discontinuing it.
Or, rather, they should publicly "float the idea" of spinning it off and see if anyone - including hobbyists - bite.
Obviously, there are exceptions. For example, if the tech is still legally encumbered or would require publishing still-valuable trade secrets you may not want to spin it off. Ditto if you are killing it because of liability concerns (e.g. your company had a side-business in tobacco in the 1980s or early 1990s) and you know that even if you spin it off, your country's legal system will still stick you with more liability for future users if you spin it off than if you kill it outright.
But for things like old Polaroid film tech, there's no reason not to see if anyone wants to buy your tech and maybe even buy the manufacturing facility (or if you need the facility for other products, they might want to lease time on it so they can do occasional production runs).
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Sorry to see Fuji go, but Polaroid film is still in production elsewhere.
Fuji's exit won't really change much.
Sig for hire.
Kids love it. They take a picture and see it fade into view like magic. Polaroid makes a whole line of instant cameras with film.
One of the magic moments of my life was the first time in a darkroom, watching the black and white image come up on the paper I was developing.
I don't want to return to those days - I'm a complete digital ho now, but it's kind of a pity that so few get to experience that moment any more.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Apparently, Fujifilm thinks there is a market. That's why they came out with their Instax line of cameras and film. It's possible that Fujifilm is trying to move Polaroid customers to their product line with this move.
Have gnu, will travel.
The problem with instant film is it's expensive. The kid may be impressed the first time they see it but they are likely to be less impressed when they find the number of shots they can take is strictly rationed. Pros too appreciate the option of taking multiple shots and only using up expensive consumables for the ones they actually want to print.
Polaroid makes a whole line of instant cameras with film.
Polariod discontinued their own instant film and cameras because they decided it wasn't viable.
A small company called Impossible bought some of the old gear and started production of polariod 100/600 compatible film packs. They had to reinvent much of the chemical process as polariod stopped chemical production years before they stopped film pack production. It seems polariod have started selling the cameras again and are reselling Impossible film.
There is also the pic 300 and pix 300 film which are a rebranding of fuji instax camera and film and some digital products (which I highly suspect are also rebrands though I don't know for sure).
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I was a bit naive to think that it would stay forever after they annonced the end of the FP-3000B, I know you people will tell it's only hipsters who use this product, but I really like using those peel-apart films with my Mamiya RZ67 pro II, instead of waiting for the photolab. The quality of these was nothing compared to film, but it was good enough. And Boy! would people be happ when you gave them the photo, because they don't see prints anymore. Good thing I got ten boxes last month, but too bad I wasted it on some crap shots. For now I'll keep them for special use only.
However, I don't think that The Impossible Project will pick up where FujiFilm left, as it's really not the same film type as they use.
Kids don't have to pay for the film.
Kids don't pay for most things.
As someone who has handled hundreds and hundreds of photographs used as exhibits for trial, I can tell you that the polaroid is pretty much the gold standard for evidence photography precisely because it cannot be messed with. (It can, technically, but tampering is an incredibly delicate job and extremely hard to conceal in practice.) The "negative" for polaroids is also the print, and their origin (and the image) can be tied directly to a specific point in time. Film is a little more consistent because there's way less variability in the development chemistry as a result of temperature (one of the problems with a lot of polaroid chemical formulations), and the negative is the more compact source of truth about the image, but film still has a two-step process from capture-to-printed-image. Both analog methods beat digital. They deteriorate on known timescales, with known effects from humidity and temperature, too, so it's easier to assess provenance and chain of custody. Further, any modification of the image, for film, almost always needs to be done at printmaking time. Usually this means lightening or darkening or color correcting, but you have to be an exacting master of the darkroom and enlarger to perform the time-consuming kind of editing tricks with printmaking that someone can knock off in 10 minutes with photoshop. Those skills (and the time involved) applied to negatives are far more challenging because you have to work with the chemistry of the post-exposure emulsion and the physical surface of thesubstrate itself. It still leaves evidence behind, too, no matter how hard one might try. Watch the X-wing and TIE fighter scenes in the original analog film version of StarWars, and you'll see ghosty-framed tracking boxes around those models as they fly through space. Those were done with frame-by-frame cutouts of images, with emulsions hand-painted over the cuts after gluing, but the optical properties of the film substrate itself gave the trick away, and that was at the very peak of negative image manipulation technique at the time, and you'll get loads of analog camera people who will argue forever about the question of whether it's still the peak, never since surpassed.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
What would *really* be cool is if someone made an image printer with wifi, Bluetooth, microSD, and usb connectivity, a lithium battery, and a touchscreen that exposed Polaroid-type film for instant prints anywhere from digital cameras.
I think I remember seeing a primitive product like this about 20 years ago, but I think it was limited to 640x480 and had insurmountable compatibility problems with just about everything (including Windows NT). Apparently, Polaroid & Kodak were both so freaked out by digital cameras, neither one wanted to legitimize them further by making a product that would have combined the best of both (shoot lots of free pictures to flash, then print the best ones after some quick & dirty editing and cropping), so instead they released a half-assed product almost *designed* to fail.
With all of the old timey Instagram filters and junk like that, don't any of these camera apps actually do that -- take the picture and simulate the same kind of fading in? (I presume to get an accurate-to-the-film fading in, it's much more than just fading from pure black into the finished picture..)
Cases abound of legacy users/consumers decrying the passing of obsolete technology. But it seems to me an opportunity is lost here. How feasible is it for groups like development-oriented NGOs to arrange for the transfer of technology and manufacturing rights to developing countries who currently lack industrial infrastructure and could use a compelling reason to start one? Maybe you can't really make money off an old product. But there is still value in the thing if the byproduct of making it can be of benefit.
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
It was really good for two use cases: where your photograph was documentation rather than art and you needed to be able to confirm that it had accurately documented what you wanted to show right away, and homemade porn.
The former has been thoroughly eclipsed by digital. The latter, well, people just learned not to shoot pictures involving faces.
I think they're silly, but there are very small portable photo printers.. e.g. http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...
The problem with instant film is it's expensive. The kid may be impressed the first time they see it but they are likely to be less impressed when they find the number of shots they can take is strictly rationed.
I got a Polaroid SX-70 Land Camera when I was about 10 for xmas from the grandparents. I think someone had given it to them as a gift and they didn't want it.
The only problem was that film WAS expensive especially for a 10 year old kid and each only had 10 pictures and many of the pictures didn't come out well - because if you even moved the camera a little while taking a picture it was blurry.
Then something either happened to the camera or I got a bad pack of film but it was at that point that I never used it again. Too expensive to risk wasting my money on another pack.
is to think nthat this will EVER qualify for the impossible project. Instamatic camera collectors are so few and far between that they will almost all be able to obtain "discovered" cartridges via ebay. IMHO the film sucks terribly and fades so quickly that anybody who hasn't scanned their "precious memopries" taken via "peel away" instamatic has most assuredly lost them by now... we were early adopters being in real estate and I can still remembert the smell to this day...
That looks like it might be nice for printing instant business cards, promotional postcards, and the like, without having to haul around a preprinted inventory.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?