Polaroid is saved!....well sorta.

[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.

 

[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.

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

... 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:

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.

Last one, the gang as we are getting ready to lower the engine back in:

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