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?

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[5855997]

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.