Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > Polaroid & Fuji Instax

Polaroid & Fuji Instax All things Polaroid and Fuji Instax

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

FYI Poloroid Pop: 3.5"-4.25" print coming....
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #1
danielsterno
making soup from mud
 
danielsterno's Avatar
 
danielsterno is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 731
FYI Poloroid Pop: 3.5"-4.25" print coming....

FYI Poloroid Pop: https://www.dpreview.com/news/229220...s-4-x-3-prints
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #2
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is online now
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 68
Posts: 4,308
Interesting idea...thanks
robert

PS: love your signature
__________________
Remember: today is the Day !
from Ruth Bernhard recipe for a long and happy life


my quiet photographer's blog


My RFF photos and my albums on RFF
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #3
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,475
Can we get a peel-apart version?

D
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #4
ulrich.von.lich
Registered User
 
ulrich.von.lich is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 265
That looks f-ugly.

Can't believe it's from the same company that made the Polaroid SX 70.

I hope Polaroid will go bankrupt soon and get purchased by the Impossible Project.
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #5
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulrich.von.lich View Post
That looks f-ugly.

Can't believe it's from the same company that made the Polaroid SX 70.

I hope Polaroid will go bankrupt soon and get purchased by the Impossible Project.
so the Impossible project will find it impossible to figure out how Polariod did it in the first place, nice.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 2 Weeks Ago   #6
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 2,652
Not a new idea. Polaroid (or whatever the company calls themselves that bought the name) has made offered something called the Z 2300 for sometime now that did the same thing. Smaller print size though.

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:

http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #7
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulrich.von.lich View Post
That looks f-ugly.

Can't believe it's from the same company that made the Polaroid SX 70.

I hope Polaroid will go bankrupt soon and get purchased by the Impossible Project.
Polaroid is the Frank Sinatra to the Impossible Project's Steve and Eydie Gorme: "Look at you - you're just swimming in my wake." Ok, so it was Phil Hartman's impression of Sinatra on The Sinatra Group, but you get the picture.

Polaroid has already been bankrupt, and the name is being licensed to C+A for cameras using different imaging technologies.

The Impossible Project has struggled - in more years than it took to invent integral film - to accurately reproduce a product on the market for decades. And this has been a stumbling process even with Ilford behind the effort. They don't have Edwin Land's magic. And someone else now owns the magic rainbow logo.

But even the Zink technology in the currrent "zombie" Polaroid brand is a highly innovative product that is completely legitimate (and weird enough for Dr. Land to have approved). It doesn't involve caustic paste, uneven development that wastes frames, poor keeping characteristics, or any of the other ills of Polaroid film, and lacks the screwy color and relatively uneven development of Impossible film. More power too them.

And fugly? You've seen Impossible's idea of an attractive camera?
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #8
VidarFoto
Registered User
 
VidarFoto is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 52
The I-1 is a beautiful camera in real life.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #9
YouAreHere
Registered User
 
YouAreHere's Avatar
 
YouAreHere is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 110
Could be a winner for the under-30 crowd that wants a little analog in their life.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #10
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
 
JoeV's Avatar
 
JoeV is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Posts: 1,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by YouAreHere View Post
Could be a winner for the under-30 crowd that wants a little analog in their life.
This isn't "analog" printing but a type of digital print called Zink.

~Joe
__________________
"If your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light"

Inventor of the Light Pipe Array
My Blog
My latest book
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #11
Hogarth Ferguson
Registered User
 
Hogarth Ferguson's Avatar
 
Hogarth Ferguson is online now
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulrich.von.lich View Post
That looks f-ugly.

Can't believe it's from the same company that made the Polaroid SX 70.

I hope Polaroid will go bankrupt soon and get purchased by the Impossible Project.


I hope impossible never buys anything.

"Hey, our film is sub-par on the best days, we have a ton of RD money, how should we tackle this"

"Let's make a new camera!"

"You mean, instead of fixing our film?"

"Yeah!"

"Promote that man!"
__________________
My Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #12
YouAreHere
Registered User
 
YouAreHere's Avatar
 
YouAreHere is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeV View Post
This isn't "analog" printing but a type of digital print called Zink.

~Joe
I know. "Analog" references the physicality of a print (regardless of the technonlogy used) to be shared by passing it around. That it's a digital print is appealing versus the wait time required by Instax offerings.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #13
giganova
Registered User
 
giganova is online now
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 723
No wonder Polaroid and Impossible are struggling. Not even "hipsters" can afford the film:

Who wants to pay $3.- per shot if its costs $0.50 with a Fuji instax mini and $0.75 for an Instax wide?
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #14
Hogarth Ferguson
Registered User
 
Hogarth Ferguson's Avatar
 
Hogarth Ferguson is online now
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
No wonder Polaroid and Impossible are struggling. Not even "hipsters" can afford the film:

Who wants to pay $3.- per shot if its costs $0.50 with a Fuji instax mini and $0.75 for an Instax wide?

I'd be happy to pay, at the most, 2 a shot for impossible film, if and only if it worked. Instead, I'm paying 3 and change for a shot that might not work at all. And instead of working out a better way, they come out with a camera that no one really needed, considering all the polaroids out there and the fact that Mint is making some amazing developments with the sx70
__________________
My Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #15
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
 
Dante_Stella's Avatar
 
Dante_Stella is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by YouAreHere View Post
I know. "Analog" references the physicality of a print (regardless of the technonlogy used) to be shared by passing it around. That it's a digital print is appealing versus the wait time required by Instax offerings.
To say nothing of IP's current 30-45 minute wait time. That's a little too long to call instant. Self-developing, maybe, but that's as long as it takes to develop a roll of 36 frames of conventional film.

Dante
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #16
Oren Grad
Registered User
 
Oren Grad is offline
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 115
It's digital capture squeezed into the same box with a Zink printer. Nothing wrong with that if it's what you want, but it's not a substitute for direct capture to film/print if the look-and-feel of the latter is what one is looking for.

(I wonder whether Fuji will ever integrate a digital camera with the Instax Share engine in the same way? Might confuse consumers, though.)

Two other things with Zink. First, I don't think we know much about the long-term stability of the Zink dyes (sure, Impossible fails that test, but Instax is quite good). And second, which may have implications for stability too, the prints are stickers - the dye crystals are coated on peelable adhesive paper. That's fine for a throw-away novelty product, maybe not so much if you want to keep the prints.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #17
vdonovan
Vince Donovan
 
vdonovan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 488
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulrich.von.lich View Post
That looks f-ugly.

Can't believe it's from the same company that made the Polaroid SX 70.

I hope Polaroid will go bankrupt soon and get purchased by the Impossible Project.
Edwin Land's Polaroid is long bankrupt and long gone. Polaroid now is strictly a licensing company. It licences the Polaroid name to various manufacturers and collects the royalties. No product development, no R&D, no marketing, nada.

Any intellectual property Polaroid owned about its film and formulations was sold off long ago.
__________________

Vince Donovan
Portrait Photographer
San Francisco, CA
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:08.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.