Polaroid is saved!....well sorta.

[Sdashiki]

I think this is better. Someone is going to try to revive integral film for the world...but not Polaroid directly anymore.

http://theimpossibleproject.com/

Polaroid, the company that you would today say was the Apple of the 60s-70s, no longer exists. Almost like Jobs dying off would be a problem for Apple, Edwin Land was Polaroid and when he died, no one stepped up to continue the genius.

Hopefully the Impossible project will become what the world needs, to keep instant photography around.

[Blue Velvet]

Polaroid, the company that you would today say was the Apple of the 60s-70s...

Controversial. I wouldn't say that, but perhaps you would.

[obeygiant]

That would be fun. I could still play with my SX-70s.

[bassproguy07]

would they be producing film as the polaroid 600? My aunt is def, and has an obsession with poloroid but she doesn't quite grasp why we cant get her film anymore. This would be great!!!!!!

[jaseone]

Err Polaroid is NOT dead, they just realized that digital is where it is at now:

http://www.polaroid.com/pogo/us/

Same concept as instant film with a printer that doesn't require ink, just more advanced technology and the ability to have the printer separate for other cameras.

[Theophany]

Don't undertake a project unless it is manifestly important and nearly impossible.

I doubt the importance of old Polaroids in a digital age. I mean, Polaroid have continued to do what they did before, essentially, just in a more up-to-date fashion. Manifestly important? I think not...

[mrgreen4242]

The little instant digital printer is neat, and I might even buy one once the price comes down (assuming that the print quality is decent, the paper it prints on is relatively heavy, not just 20lbs office paper type stuff, and the price per sheet gets to ~$0.15 or so in bulk). I would carry one to rip off quick copies of photos to give to people "in trade" for letting me take their photo, aside from other obvious uses with friends and family.

But, it's not the same as a "real" Polaroid instant photo. The actual instant film shots are iconic, from the white border layout to the slowly developing image, and the particular color that you get from Polaroids to even the sound they make spitting out of the camera.

That said, I don't think I would want an instant Polaroid camera of old, but I might be interested in something based off that technology...

[gkarris]

I heard something about it earlier that someone was going to try to save the factory in the Netherlands... :)

[andiwm2003]

The little instant digital printer is neat, and I might even buy one once the price comes down (assuming that the print quality is decent, the paper it prints on is relatively heavy, not just 20lbs office paper type stuff, and the price per sheet gets to ~$0.15 or so in bulk). I would carry one to rip off quick copies of photos to give to people "in trade" for letting me take their photo, aside from other obvious uses with friends and family.

But, it's not the same as a "real" Polaroid instant photo. The actual instant film shots are iconic, from the white border layout to the slowly developing image, and the particular color that you get from Polaroids to even the sound they make spitting out of the camera.

That said, I don't think I would want an instant Polaroid camera of old, but I might be interested in something based off that technology...


aren't the sony photo printers doing that already? ok, not portable but that should be possible if there was a large enough market.

[mrgreen4242]

aren't the sony photo printers doing that already? ok, not portable but that should be possible if there was a large enough market.
I'm not sure what Sony printers you are talking about? :confused:

[Sdashiki]

The Zink printer and the Pogo camera or whatever which mates the printer with camera into one unit:

gets 20 prints per charge.

now, if you are using the camera/printer combo youll get less because alot of juice goes to the picture taking, viewing, cropping. Oh, did it mention that the actual print size is not the same as the image size? Every print is cropped. If you dont print all your photos at once, youll get even less prints per charge as the heating element takes less power to stay hot than to keep cooling and heating.

the original SX-70 folding camera fits in a jacket pocket, is an SLR, gets 10 shots per "charge" because the battery is in the pack. I dont need paper refills, just pop in a new pack and im ready to go. I can be miles from a USB port and still be able to have prints in hand. This "impossible project" will continue this ability for instant photography.

so, this is not Polaroid "coming to terms with the digital age", its not the same company it once was. THAT company went bankrupt and lost focus the day the founder died. Today, its a company owned by an investment corp which is currently under investigation.

Other than the Zink paper concept, Polaroid the company is dead. DVD players, TVs, even the digital cameras, werent Polaroid, just branded.

There is a world of difference between an actual photograph in hand, and the glowing screen on your digital. Instant film has its place, and it certainly cant be replaced by digital.

[mcavjame]

This may sound insensitive, but I never cared for polaroid images (at the consumer level anyway). They lacked clarity, couldn't be reproduced and don't age well.

There are so many devices today that make a polaroid irrelevant. PS digital cameras, camera phones, laptops with web cams. If you want the immediacy of a polaroid, it's just an email away.

[Sdashiki]

There are so many devices today that make a polaroid irrelevant. PS digital cameras, camera phones, laptops with web cams. If you want the immediacy of a polaroid, it's just an email away.

digital cameras dont give you a print.

there are lots of SLR glass lensed polaroids that take fantastic images...as well as very high end medium format machines which take polaroid backs.

instant photography is not equal to digital photography. yes, youve taken 100 shots digitally, can email everyone to your friends and family, who can then print them out on possibly archival type paper.

or, you can take a photo which is unique and can never be reproduced exactly. analog photography has a charm that instant film grasps all at once.


on the other hand what would one do for mob hits? :cool:

[hulugu]

This may sound insensitive, but I never cared for polaroid images (at the consumer level anyway). They lacked clarity, couldn't be reproduced and don't age well.

There are so many devices today that make a polaroid irrelevant. PS digital cameras, camera phones, laptops with web cams. If you want the immediacy of a polaroid, it's just an email away.

I think a lot of the call to "save Polaroid" is based in nostalgia for a device that has been superseded by many similar gadgets, however nothing quite captures an image the way the Polaroid cameras did.

Phone cameras are great—some are even fantastic, but there's no immediate product. We still have to find a printer and spend some time dinking around, losing all the spontanity and, dare I say, intimacy of the original format.

[Sdashiki]

Save Polaroid should read "save instant film"

because even those running the savepolaroid site, know Polaroid is dead as a film company. They arent going to make a single camera or new film, ever.

But, just like Kleenex and Band-Aid, polaroid equals instant photography.

Polaroid is its own noun, has its place in numerous legal documents and has become a pop culture icon.

So, when i say "Polaroid is Saved" what I mean to say is "Integral instant film is saved", but most wouldnt have a clue what I meant. :cool:

[bertpalmer]

Don't forget Poladroid! http://www.poladroid.net/

This is a great app for Mac users and is free - download and enjoy.

[Sdashiki]

That is EXACTLY the reason I say Polaroid has become an icon.

Poladroid is retarded IMO...maybe its just when I see people posting them to the Polaroid flickr group and then saying "Oh, I thought it only had to look like one, not BE one."


If you want to use Poladroid so badly to get that look, go GET that look with a real instant camera.

[mcavjame]

digital cameras dont give you a print.


That's the point.

There is nothing more instant than taking a shot and doing one of the following:
- turning the camera over to show the subject
- press send on your camera phone so your friend across town can see the image
- attach it to an email on your RIM device and distribute it to a group of people

The demographic that would have used a polaroid in its day is the same demographic that use the immediacy of the camera phone today. Not the same, low quality image. Just a different kind of low quality image.

[mcavjame]

We still have to find a printer and spend some time dinking around, losing all the spontanity and, dare I say, intimacy of the original format.

I don't know many people who want to print their camera phone pics. The mode of operating is more along the lines of keeping or trashing and forwarding.

That's no less spontaneous but a lot less intimate.

[bertpalmer]

That is EXACTLY the reason I say Polaroid has become an icon.

Poladroid is retarded IMO...maybe its just when I see people posting them to the Polaroid flickr group and then saying "Oh, I thought it only had to look like one, not BE one."


If you want to use Poladroid so badly to get that look, go GET that look with a real instant camera.
I don't agree - it isn't Iconic - just extremely popular among a niche.

Poladroid is a great app - it doesn't matter HOW you got to the end image just so long as it is good. Saying yu have to use original equipment is a little short sighted at best...

[hulugu]

I don't know many people who want to print their camera phone pics. The mode of operating is more along the lines of keeping or trashing and forwarding.

That's no less spontaneous but a lot less intimate.

I said that getting a picture in someone's hand lacked spontaneity and intimacy. Taking a picture with a digital camera, ensconced in a phone or otherwise, allows you to show the photo but it's tiny and lacks the tangible quality of a printed photo. And, the intimacy is gone.

I'm not bashing on the fun of cellphone cameras, but there is a tradeoff between being able to send it to Flickr and a dozen friends at once and having a tangible object you can pass around that isn't your phone or camera and that you also don't mind letting go.

[MaddMacs]

Hmm I tried reading the article, but my IE kept crashing. IMO the instant market is still there, but rather than having an analog medium, I think the market would be better served with digital. For example, making a completely new digintal camera with a mini printer built into it that prints off of a roll of photo paper. You could then keep the photo on a flash card, and have instant prints as well. Maybe I'll run to the patent office now.....

[Sdashiki]

they already have the pogo printer and Polaroid has a camera version of it. http://www.polaroid.com/pogo/us/

it lacks alot in terms of what a Polaroid camera can give you, besides having paltry battery life, cropping your photos, and non archival prints...


You cant compare a cellphone camera with a Polaroid is not the same thing.

Today, the only people "still" interested in Polaroids are photographers, not everyone and their mother with a cell phone.

Just because the only Polaroids you have ever seen looked like crap, doesnt mean the medium/format of instant photography, the feeling of having a unique one of a kind physical print in your hand, is not worth keeping around even with all the abilities of digital.

A glowing screen can not compare to a print in hand. :cool:

Im not trying to convert anyone from digital to analog. What should be obvious is that anyone who cares, cares. Those who dont, could care less.

[hulugu]

....
Today, the only people "still" interested in Polaroids are photographers, not everyone and their mother with a cell phone.

Just because the only Polaroids you have ever seen looked like crap, doesnt mean the medium/format of instant photography, the feeling of having a unique one of a kind physical print in your hand, is not worth keeping around even with all the abilities of digital.....


Exactly. A resurrected Polaroid is a joy for photographers.

[H$R]

As a child it was great. When you were at a buddies birthday or any other event they could take a picture and hand it to you. Than within minutes you had your picture. Was always a big pleasure.

This times are gone.


That's the point.

There is nothing more instant than taking a shot and doing one of the following:
- turning the camera over to show the subject
- press send on your camera phone so your friend across town can see the image
- attach it to an email on your RIM device and distribute it to a group of people

The demographic that would have used a polaroid in its day is the same demographic that use the immediacy of the camera phone today. Not the same, low quality image. Just a different kind of low quality image.

Children shoudn't have a cellphone until their old enough IMHO

Sure for everyone else it's more convenient today. Better quality and more copies which you can send instantly to your friends. But there's no fun related anymore.

[Abraxsis]

Personally I see lots of pro digital people that really dont understand the basics of photography. 90% of Pros still use film, especially medium format, along with digital because film has a tangible aspect to it. Digital photography, painting, etc etc all help to remove skill from the equation. If I dont get a picture just right I just retouch it in PS, if I mess up a color/stroke on a digital painting, Ill just erase it and start over. Digital lacks the same degrees of forethought and acquision of skill. I dont know how many times I heard, well your SLR is Digital, just keep shooting till you get it right. I mean, if youre going to ply the craft, at least take the time to learn the craft, IN ITS ENTIRETY.

I still use a Land Camera 360 for some of my work, as well as a 1960's Minolta Autocord TLR. Yeah, I can reproduce the effect in PS with my eyes closed, from a print in a camera that does a lot of the thinking for you. But NOTHING can take the place of that negative or that Polaroid.

[Sdashiki]

But NOTHING can take the place of that negative or that Polaroid.


There is nothing more instant than taking a shot and doing one of the following:
- turning the camera over to show the subject
- press send on your camera phone so your friend across town can see the image
- attach it to an email on your RIM device and distribute it to a group of people


Sure, your digital photos are clearer, larger and easily sent around the world. But thats it.

In 5 years, where are you going to keep your digital bits? CD, DVD, BluRay: none have been proven for archival purposes. So youll need plenty of backups, for say, oh, the next century at least...and when you inevitably die, whose gonna upkeep that collection of 1s and 0s? You want your children's children to keep backing up your Facebook photos you took when you were at that party that one time?


Analog photography has its place, a proven place in history. Polaroids are the epitome of that handheld ideal...holding something is alot better than just seeing it.

:cool:

[hulugu]

Sure, your digital photos are clearer, larger and easily sent around the world. But thats it.

In 5 years, where are you going to keep your digital bits? CD, DVD, BluRay: none have been proven for archival purposes. So youll need plenty of backups, for say, oh, the next century at least...and when you inevitably die, whose gonna upkeep that collection of 1s and 0s? You want your children's children to keep backing up your Facebook photos you took when you were at that party that one time?


Analog photography has its place, a proven place in history. Polaroids are the epitome of that handheld ideal...holding something is alot better than just seeing it.

:cool:

That's an interesting thought. Personally, I have stuff on my MacBook Pro that goes back to my Mac Classic, I just keep dumping the files onto bigger and bigger drives.

So, theoretically speaking, this may actually be more advantageous than a physical object which can be lost or degraded in some way.

[termina3]

Analog photography has its place, a proven place in history. Polaroids are the epitome of that handheld ideal...holding something is alot better than just seeing it.

First, I entirely agree with the "handheld" notion. I write much better with a legal pad an pen than on a computer; of course I always eventually get to a computer, but that's a second draft. That same notion translates to many other things, including viewing photos.

But the idea that film is somehow more archival than digital is absurd. Because of how easily digital files can be copied, they can be stored in many different physical locations, securing them against most any physical disaster. They can be copied again and again to the point where the fact that the magnetization eventually fades is irrelevant. And kids have to deal with files and files of negatives, why is that inherently easier than dealing with digital files? I'd actually argue that digital files are more easily stored.

Use a web-based photo service, like SmugMug, and they'll manage those files and their redundancy for you.

And finally, who's stopping you from printing your digital files out and sticking them in a cabinet somewhere? Those are your definition of archival quality, go do it.

[Abraxsis]

But the idea that film is somehow more archival than digital is absurd. Because of how easily digital files can be copied, they can be stored in many different physical locations, securing them against most any physical disaster. They can be copied again and again to the point where the fact that the magnetization eventually fades is irrelevant. And kids have to deal with files and files of negatives, why is that inherently easier than dealing with digital files? I'd actually argue that digital files are more easily stored.

Exactly, so lets just scan in all the Leonardos, the Rembrandts, the Picassos, etc. and just store them that way. Then we can just toss all the originals and use all those museum spaces for something else. With the line of thinking you have here, those should be just as good, if not better than the physical piece because we can replicate it over and over and over.

As with my original comment, we just have a new idea of digital everything. What is easy, what is simple. Developing film is difficult, taking to the lab is boring. Going to buy film is a waste of time, "you mean I have to be able to see the picture in my head and SET this manual camera to the right settings? You mean I have to THINK?"

Yes, this is an exaggeration, but this IS what things are coming to.

[termina3]

Exactly, so lets just scan in all the Leonardos, the Rembrandts, the Picassos, etc. and just store them that way. Then we can just toss all the originals and use all those museum spaces for something else. With the line of thinking you have here, those should be just as good, if not better than the physical piece because we can replicate it over and over and over.

Please reread the first part of the post you've quoted:

First, I entirely agree with the "handheld" notion. I write much better with a legal pad an pen than on a computer; of course I always eventually get to a computer, but that's a second draft. That same notion translates to many other things, including viewing photos.

[genshi]

I know this thread is a bit older, but I had to throw in my support for the Polaroid... as much of a lover of all-things-tech that I am (and I even teach Digital Photography at a community college here in Los Angeles) I spend most of my photography time shooting Medium Format film with my Holgas and shooting Polaroids. There really is something special about film in general and yes, maybe it is a nostalgia thing (I had been shooting digital for a very long time but have recently moved back to film.) And the more I shoot with film, the further back in technology I want to explore...

Just yesterday I shot this photo with a Polaroid Pinhole camera using "Blue" Polaroid film from Polapremium.com (http://www.polapremium.com/shop/film/type100/fi_100_1_0409_blue)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3489/3798619443_b13532d367.jpg

... and it was just so satisfying having that 45 second exposure, not knowing what the results would be, then seeing this exact image (no photoshopping at all) in my hand as I peeled apart the polaroid; people walking by seeing me crouched on the ground, a box with a tiny hole poked in the middle, asking me what I'm doing with that "contraption" and then me showing them the resulting polaroid... just so much more of a "wow" factor than snapping something with my iPhone (or Digital SLR) and showing them an image on a screen.

[peskaa]

Well, I've just had my first three packs of PX600 First Flush film from The Impossible Project arrive. I am positively gagging to get some shots out.

[mtbdudex]

The little instant digital printer is neat, and I might even buy one once the price comes down (assuming that the print quality is decent, the paper it prints on is relatively heavy, not just 20lbs office paper type stuff, and the price per sheet gets to ~$0.15 or so in bulk). I would carry one to rip off quick copies of photos to give to people "in trade" for letting me take their photo, aside from other obvious uses with friends and family.

But, it's not the same as a "real" Polaroid instant photo. The actual instant film shots are iconic, from the white border layout to the slowly developing image, and the particular color that you get from Polaroids to even the sound they make spitting out of the camera.

That said, I don't think I would want an instant Polaroid camera of old, but I might be interested in something based off that technology...

Yes - via FaceBook I hooked up with friends for our upcoming 30th HS class reunion (class 1980).
I was a "hot rodder" in the late 70's and my dad took Polaroids of the various engine builds I did for my 1969 Ford Torino GT, 390 FE engine 400+ hp.
Unknown to me my buddies took a few from the viewing table and I did not see them for 30 years until just 1 month ago.

Boy, vivid memories and iconic, you are correct the 'zzzttt' sound as the Polaroid exited, and waiting for it to develop.
(but the physical Polaroids not long lasting well over time.)

Some "lost treasures" they sent to me via scanning, My ride in driveway:
My Ford 390FE engine with 427 med riser heads and 2 x 4 manifold in re-build process:
http://hphotos-sjc1.fbcdn.net/hs160.snc3/18748_107692589243733_100000089764867_193513_7357740_n.jpg http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs260.ash1/18748_107692575910401_100000089764867_193511_5918554_n.jpg

My2 friends Lee and Brad holding up chrome engine covers, Finally Polaroid in Polaroid, I'm the guy with blue coveralls leaning over the engine hoist in my dads garage.
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs140.snc3/18748_107692562577069_100000089764867_193509_2905020_n.jpg http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs140.snc3/18748_107653302580995_100000089764867_192583_1119426_n.jpg

Last one, the gang as we are getting ready to lower the engine back in:
http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs160.snc3/18748_107692569243735_100000089764867_193510_5385608_n.jpg

Yea, there was some major PP done to these to "bring them back", the original scans sent to me via email were barely viewable.