Goodbye Polaroid!

[MrBern]

impossible project success

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/10/14/polaroid_film_is_coming_back/

Polaroid film is coming back
By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff | October 14, 2009
Eighteen months after Polaroid Corp. said it was halting sales of its instant film, one of Massachusetts’ most famous products may be coming back to life.

PLR IP Holdings LLC, the investment group that owns the Polaroid brand, has struck a deal that could put Polaroid film back on retailers’ shelves.

PLR, owned in part by Gordon Brothers Group, of Boston, licensed Utah-based Summit Global Group to sell digital cameras under the Polaroid name in June. Now Summit is cleared to resume sales of Polaroid film.

At a news conference held yesterday in Hong Kong, Summit’s managing director, Giovanni Tomaselli, said the film will be manufactured by the Impossible Project, an Austrian company which has acquired the former Polaroid factory in the Netherlands.

According to The Impossible Project’s website, the company will begin with black-and-white film in early 2010 and will offer a color version later in the year.

Hiawatha Bray can be reached at bray@globe.com.


© Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

 

[Cap'n Spaulding]

Does anyone know how long undeveloped polaroid film will keep? I'm thinking about stocking up on some film before it goes away.

 

[Quigley Brown]

I bought an old Polaroid in the thrift store recently. It had two boxes of film, but had an expiration date of 2004 lol . They came out brown and white...

 

[Lady Day]

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/10/14/polaroid_film_is_coming_back/

Thats great, but if they cant *sell* the film to a market larger than the nostalgia demographic, I fear a year from their start of manufacturing date, they will be closing again.

LD

 

[Maguire]

As a certified photo technician i can tell you the quality of a 35mm or regular film still is superior to that of a digital camera, although the gap is closing very fast. Polaroids never had great quality but their whole gimmick was getting instant pictures, something digital cameras do with no problem, and no cost (at my store the polaroid film even on clearance was selling for double or triple the cost of regular film).

 

[m000m000]

Polaroid cameras, maybe. But not standard film cameras. Serious photographers know that even an advanced DSLR camera can't compete with film. Part of the editing process (i.e. some of the things one can do in Photoshop) actually takes place in the darkroom. Besides, working long hours in the darkroom is fun!

NH

I'm relatively sure there is virtually no effect you could come up in the darkroom that you couldn't with some work re-create with a contemporary digital camera & Photoshop.
If anyone wants to enlighten me and prove the contarery, by all means be my guest, since as someone with only rudimentary dark room experience and comparedly much more extensive photoshop experience I'd be very interested to hear about it.


Anyway, from all I've gathered, the most notable difference between film and digital today is that (good)film still offers a slightly better/higher dynamic range; beyond that, the differences are mostly miniscule or of the "how much money can I afford to throw on my equipment/problem" -variety, which of course is somewhat of an issue for people who are just hobbyists, particulary if you're into medium format cameras or other more 'upscale' areas of the field.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Can't we ever get away from "film vs. digital"? Why do we need to prove that one is "better"?!?

It's not about which is the better way to make pictures. It's not about some kind of killer competition between film and digital (except in sales terms). They are simply very different imaging technologies. Both can both produce lovely images, but there are inherent differences - it's more like oil painting vs. water colors or pencil drawing vs. ink drawing.

Shooting film is more about what kind of film you use - speed, grain/resolution, color balance, each manufacturer's emulsion's unique "look" - and the lens you are shooting with. Lenses on different types of cameras, and lenses themsleves (depending on when and how they were designed/built), produce vastly different kinds of images. The type of photographic paper and lenses used on the enlarger come into play too.

Pictures from my 1956 Minox subminiature look very different from my 1971 Nikon. Pictures from my 1959 YashicaMat TLR look very different from my 1976 Olympus OM-2. Pictures from my dad's 4x5 Graphic View and Crown Graphic are a whole other thing - and the variations are even greater in the range of 1940s-1970s lenses used on these cameras. And as I said before, different types of film widen the range of variations tremendously.

But from what I've seen, most digital cameras (apart from high-end SLRs that accept different lenses) produce an accurate but somewhat "vanilla" image. Lenses are sharp, but have no personality quirks. Autofocus and autoexposue, used 99% of the time, produce documentation, but not art. Zooms are used indescrimintely, rather than moving around and finding the best position/angle. Most people use their autoflashes far too much, when turning it off and using natural light would produce a superior image. Yes, you can avoid this syndrome if you are a more talented photographer and have learned to think about light, position, exposure, capturing the defining moment, and so on. But most people who do this are still film-trained, to a greater or lesser extent.

Sure, you can Photoshop a digital image to resemble a particular film-produced style. You can soften the image and add "grain". You can mimic the distortion of wide-angle lenses or the flare from old uncoated lenses. But it's still an attempt at replication, not quite the same thing as using the inherent differences in film cameras and film to your advantage.

Anyway, there are still "reasons" to shoot film that go beyond the statistics of resolution and the obvious convenience/economy of digital imaging. There's much to be said for the pleasure darkroom work, which is a very different thing from manipulating a computer image. My own feeling is that film photography will be with us for a long time, as it is a wonderful craft/art with some very unique aspects.

Photography didn't kill painting, and digital imaging won't kill photography. Just use the tools you prefer, and please stop arguing about which is "better".

 

[LordBest]

I'm still trying to get over the loss of daguerreotype.

 

[ThesFlishThngs]

I'm still trying to get over the loss of daguerreotype.

:eusa_clap Yes, that was a devastating blow, wasn't it?

 

[MrBern]

Pic 1000

a revival of Polaroid Color 600 instant film , and a new camera body...

http://www.photographybay.com/2010/01/12/polaroid-pic-1000/

Supported by a strategic relationship with Summit Global Group, a longtime Polaroid partner, and The Impossible Project, the manufacturer of classic film for Polaroid film cameras, Polaroid will offer a completely redesigned, modern version of the Polaroid OneStep camera, the PIC 1000. The PIC 1000 will be available in a range of fun colors and use classic Polaroid Color 600 Instant Film to produce the brand’s classic white border instant pictures. The Polaroid Color 600 Instant Film will work with both classic and new Polaroid cameras and will be offered in packs of 10 pictures. The new classic PIC 1000 camera and instant color film will be available at national retailers in 2010. -Polaroid Press Release

 

[JimWagner]

I junked my dark room equipment years ago in favor of digital. I found that a prosumer or pro digital camera (not a point and shoot) was just as good, if not better than 35mm, more versatile, and a lot less expensive to use than film. No more messy (at best) or lethal (at worse) chemicals to contend with. Much better control of the end result. I can afford to shoot more.

That said, if I was going to shoot larger format cameras I'd still want to use film.

 

[trapperjohnme]

i still have a soft spot for film. BUT I do beleive I get better resolution with my D2X than I ever did even with slow slide film.

 

[Randy]

Does anyone know how long undeveloped polaroid film will keep? I'm thinking about stocking up on some film before it goes away.

Not all that long. The chemical pods will become dry after a short time (photographically speaking) and then they colors will be splotchy and areas of the image could be missing completely. I'd say try to use the film you have within a year from it's date. Unlike roll and sheet film, which can last decades or more in the freezer, Polaroid film cannot be preserved by chilling or freezing. Enjoy what you've got and always remember Dr. Lands dream

- Randy

 

[Warbaby]

Film vs digital, darkroom vs Photoshop, camera/lens quality - all of it is irrelevant. Art happens in the eyes and talent of the photographer. Think of it this way: Eric Clapton could pick up the crappiest guitar in town and still get something beautiful out of it.

 

[MrBern]

Analog Instant Film, its back

reports that Impossible Project is about to start shipping their revived polaroid film:

http://theworldsbestever.com/2010/07/30/inspected-gadget-color-polaroid-film-is-back/

 

[vitanola]

I'm still trying to get over the loss of daguerreotype.

Yes, an absolutely grainless image, with a deep gray scale and a remarkable effect of three-dimensionality. All produced on a mirror!

Viewing a good "Dag" is like looking directly into the past with a mirror. Unfortunately most of these photos are tiny eighth-plate portraits which are seldom arresting. A half or full-plate landscape, however, is a real treasure.