I wonder how long we'll have peel aparts.

[SteveM(PA)]

I have a Polaroid Land 230, from which I get decent results, and to a certain extent I've become obsessed with Polaroid. I just love it. The smell, the process, all the scraps of paper amongst which a really nice photograph can often be found. But I'm not happy with its exposure choices, and was thinking of going for one of the all-manual, more expensive models.

Fuji seems to market the film strictly as an ID and proofing tool, even though there are so many Lands still in use in the consumer market. The commercial market is probably a tiny, quickly shrinking blip.

But yes, I know. It's here now, so buy it and shoot it while you can. Nobody knows what is down the road. It would make me alittle sad, though, to have an expensive 'roid shelf queen.

[loquax ludens]

I'd never shot instant film, except in a proofing back in my RZ67, until last week. I bought an SX-70 and some Impossible film. I'm having fun with it, but Impossible film is Holga-like, in that you never know exactly what you're going to get. There are artifacts and low contrast and color saturation or grey scale tonality anomalies that can make the results look very interesting. But if you want something that looks like what Fuji instant film produces or what Polaroid produced, you're out of luck. I may need to get a camera I can shoot Fuji film in too.

[Robert Lai]

With the recent loss of the Fuji 4x5 peel apart films, I can well understand your existential angst concerning the Polaroid cameras. I have a few orphan cameras myself - 620 Kodak Tourist, 126 Kodak Instamatic, Canon ELPH APS, an Olympus 3MP digicam. They would make good toys for my son today.

However, in the here and now, Fuji's sales of the smaller peel-apart film seems to be holding up. I don't have actual figures, but this was from a web posting I read some months ago.

The film is expensive. Each sheet of FP-100C costs me about 75 cents. Some of the older Polaroid stock sold by the Impossible project works out to about $2.50 per shot.

The problem with the automatic exposure cameras is that I really have no idea what it's going to meter on. I waste far more pictures with my 250 than with my all manual 180. In fact, with the 180 and incident light metering, I rarely waste any based on an exposure problem. The Tessar lens of the 180 is far sharper than the f/8.8 triplet of the 250.

When you add up the wasted film costs, the difference between an all-manual Polaroid camera vs an auto-exposure model vanishes if you use enough film. For that reason, I've tended to stop using the 250.

[Gumby]

For the non-art applications, the days were numbered many days ago. Sad, but true. Instant photography (non-digital) was really nice when it was in its heyday.

[loquax ludens]

Originally Posted by Robert Lai

The film is expensive. Each sheet of FP-100C costs me about 75 cents. Some of the older Polaroid stock sold by the Impossible project works out to about $2.50 per shot.

Hi. As far as I can tell, Impossible Project isn't selling any old Polaroid stock. Maybe they were at one time and have sold out? They are making their own instant film, and at $24 per pack of 8, it's $3 a shot.

[SteveM(PA)]

Originally Posted by Robert Lai

The problem with the automatic exposure cameras is that I really have no idea what it's going to meter on. I waste far more pictures with my 250 than with my all manual 180. In fact, with the 180 and incident light metering, I rarely waste any based on an exposure problem. The Tessar lens of the 180 is far sharper than the f/8.8 triplet of the 250.

When you add up the wasted film costs, the difference between an all-manual Polaroid camera vs an auto-exposure model vanishes if you use enough film.

That's exactly what my argument has been to my wife

[unixrevolution]

Originally Posted by Robert Lai

With the recent loss of the Fuji 4x5 peel apart films, I can well understand your existential angst concerning the Polaroid cameras. I have a few orphan cameras myself - 620 Kodak Tourist, 126 Kodak Instamatic, Canon ELPH APS, an Olympus 3MP digicam. They would make good toys for my son today.

However, in the here and now, Fuji's sales of the smaller peel-apart film seems to be holding up. I don't have actual figures, but this was from a web posting I read some months ago.

The film is expensive. Each sheet of FP-100C costs me about 75 cents. Some of the older Polaroid stock sold by the Impossible project works out to about $2.50 per shot.

The problem with the automatic exposure cameras is that I really have no idea what it's going to meter on. I waste far more pictures with my 250 than with my all manual 180. In fact, with the 180 and incident light metering, I rarely waste any based on an exposure problem. The Tessar lens of the 180 is far sharper than the f/8.8 triplet of the 250.

When you add up the wasted film costs, the difference between an all-manual Polaroid camera vs an auto-exposure model vanishes if you use enough film. For that reason, I've tended to stop using the 250.

If you have a darkroom or changing bag, respooling 120 onto 620 spools is easy. I have a Medalist, a Tourist, and 2 6x6 box cameras that take 620 and I shoot them all occasionally.

I used to carry around a Polaroid 600se just to shoot instant in. Nowadays, since my 600se is in Florida being fixed, I tend to shoot more sheets of Instant through my 4x5's than my land camera.

Originally Posted by loquax ludens

I'd never shot instant film, except in a proofing back in my RZ67, until last week. I bought an SX-70 and some Impossible film. I'm having fun with it, but Impossible film is Holga-like, in that you never know exactly what you're going to get. There are artifacts and low contrast and color saturation or grey scale tonality anomalies that can make the results look very interesting. But if you want something that looks like what Fuji instant film produces or what Polaroid produced, you're out of luck. I may need to get a camera I can shoot Fuji film in too.

I've been wondering, myself, if Impossible's film is that way entirely on purpose, or if they just can't do any better...

Originally Posted by Gumby

For the non-art applications, the days were numbered many days ago. Sad, but true. Instant photography (non-digital) was really nice when it was in its heyday.

Even in the age of Digital, the instant camera is still something magical. I'm hoping the magic of taking instant pictures stays around.

[loquax ludens]

Originally Posted by unixrevolution

I've been wondering, myself, if Impossible's film is that way entirely on purpose, or if they just can't do any better...

My assumption has been that they are starting from scratch from a technology perspective, having acquired the Polaroid factory in Enschede, NL, but not the Polaroid instant film patents and knowledge. Having to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. They imply this on their about page.

I also see on that same page that Dr. Florian Kaps, founder and CMO, was a leading manager of the Lomographic Society, developing their online community and shop platform.

I would like to see both kinds of products. If they can develop an instant film that has the sharp, contrasty, saturated characteristics of the Fuji and the former Polaroid instant films, I believe it would appeal to a much larger market than those who are looking for special, unusual, serendipitous (or calamitous) effects. Of course, that is provided they can bring the price of a more mainstream product down to the level where people will be willing to start using their millions of Polaroid cameras again.

[Mackinaw]

Originally Posted by loquax ludens

Hi. As far as I can tell, Impossible Project isn't selling any old Polaroid stock. Maybe they were at one time and have sold out? They are making their own instant film, and at $24 per pack of 8, it's $3 a shot.

Impossible is still selling some original Polaroid film (made in 2008), but their stocks are dwindling. Most of what they offer on their website is Impossible Project film.

Jim B.

[vdonovan]

I would be very very sad if peel apart goes away. My shop in San Francisco, Photobooth, specializes in instant cameras and film. We sell about one Polaroid pack film camera and about ten packs of Fuji Instant peel-apart film per week (outside of the holiday season, when we sell more). We also burn about 20 packs of Fuji Instant per month shooting special events. We see a lot of enthusiasm for pack film cameras, but of course the market will never be what it was.

I was certainly broken hearted when Fuji discountinued 4x5 peel-apart film. We use a lot of it (meaning, about two packs per month) for special events. The FP-3000b was one of my favorite films in 4x5. We were developing a portrait product around the 4x5, but now obviously we have to change our plans.

[Ezzie]

I love peel apart film. Very tactile experience. Now have a 250, and a 110A I have converted to 600SE type backs, with two CB103 backs. One carrying FP3000B, the other FP100C. If ever Fuji stop making peel apart film, I'll adapt a CB70 back for IP film, or use the 110A for 120 6x7, 6x8 or 6x9.

The 110A gives visibly better results. I have grafted a Tominon 127/f4.7 onto mine, with a Copal shutter. Fully manual, the only one messing up the exposure is me. Get much more predictable results and keepers then with the 250

[Ezzie]

Got a load of pack film in the mail the other day. Admittedly not all current, but not so much over date it´ll be useless.

Amongst them Fuji FP100B and Polaroid 100 Blue. Looking forward to trying out both.

[SteveM(PA)]

Originally Posted by Ezzie

Got a load of pack film in the mail the other day. Admittedly not all current, but not so much over date it´ll be useless.

Amongst them Fuji FP100B and Polaroid 100 Blue. Looking forward to trying out both.

Ahh that sounds like fun times ahead. What a great package to get.

[Ezzie]

A year over expiry, and FP100B still rocks. Very much look forward to try out bleaching off the backing and scanning the negative, because the resolution on this film seems very good indeed.


Umoe by Eirik0304, on Flickr