50 Years Later: a Rebirth for Polaroid's 'Instant Cameras'? (fastcompany.com) 46
In 1972, photo prints that developed before your eyes were "downright magical," argues Fast Company — "and still meaningful today."
A new article at Fast Company points out that while Polaroid went bankrupt twice, and stopped making cameras in 2007, "Then an unexpected thing happened: It turned out that even Polaroid couldn't kill Polaroid." Even as instant photography's eulogies were being written, a band of enthusiasts known as The Impossible Project bought the last Polaroid factory that hadn't been hastily dismantled and started producing film packs again. The task required reformulating its own chemistry from scratch, and it was years until the results reached the vicinity of original Polaroid quality. Fans were very patient.
Eventually, the Impossible Project and Polaroid came under the same ownership, adopted Polaroid as the unified brand, and started making instant cameras again. The new models start at $100 and look a lot like that 1977 OneStep, even when they're adorably miniaturized. It's almost as if Polaroid's years in limbo were a bad dream.... Polaroid and several smaller companies refurbish old models, replacing worn parts and otherwise returning them to optimum performance. Repairing an SX-70 generally involves permanently removing its leather, but replacement skins are available in an array of styles, from the traditional to the psychedelic.
Increasingly, yesteryear's Polaroid cameras are springing back to life in surprising ways. Wisconsin-based Retrospekt not only revives old models, but also encases antique innards in new plastic shells, allowing it to sell branding crossovers such as Malibu Barbie and Pepsi-themed Polaroid cameras. Hong Kong's Mint offers a camera called the SLR670 that's really a restored SX-70 accompanied by a gizmo that plugs into the flash port to allow for manual settings. And Open SX-70 is a project to smarten up the SX-70 by replacing its 1970s circuit board with a tiny Arduino computer.
Other things I learned from the article:
A new article at Fast Company points out that while Polaroid went bankrupt twice, and stopped making cameras in 2007, "Then an unexpected thing happened: It turned out that even Polaroid couldn't kill Polaroid." Even as instant photography's eulogies were being written, a band of enthusiasts known as The Impossible Project bought the last Polaroid factory that hadn't been hastily dismantled and started producing film packs again. The task required reformulating its own chemistry from scratch, and it was years until the results reached the vicinity of original Polaroid quality. Fans were very patient.
Eventually, the Impossible Project and Polaroid came under the same ownership, adopted Polaroid as the unified brand, and started making instant cameras again. The new models start at $100 and look a lot like that 1977 OneStep, even when they're adorably miniaturized. It's almost as if Polaroid's years in limbo were a bad dream.... Polaroid and several smaller companies refurbish old models, replacing worn parts and otherwise returning them to optimum performance. Repairing an SX-70 generally involves permanently removing its leather, but replacement skins are available in an array of styles, from the traditional to the psychedelic.
Increasingly, yesteryear's Polaroid cameras are springing back to life in surprising ways. Wisconsin-based Retrospekt not only revives old models, but also encases antique innards in new plastic shells, allowing it to sell branding crossovers such as Malibu Barbie and Pepsi-themed Polaroid cameras. Hong Kong's Mint offers a camera called the SLR670 that's really a restored SX-70 accompanied by a gizmo that plugs into the flash port to allow for manual settings. And Open SX-70 is a project to smarten up the SX-70 by replacing its 1970s circuit board with a tiny Arduino computer.
Other things I learned from the article:
- "Each film pack contained its own battery, so the camera would never run out of juice at an inopportune moment."
- Kodak was forced out of the instant photography market in 1986 by a Polaroid patent infringement suit in which Polaroid won $925 million in damages.
- Edwin Land's "final gambit to revolutionize photography" was 1977's wildly unpopular Polavision instant home movies.
- There's a 1974 ad for the cameras narrated by Laurence Olivier.
Sometimes we have to let retro go (Score:1)
The
Re: (Score:1)
Polaroid was a very good solution to a need. To instantly image a scene.
Yes it was. But that was 50 years ago. Today, not so much.
I'm old enough that I owned a Polaroid camera back in the late 70s. Picture quality was mediocre at best. But you got your picture right away and didn't have to wait days for someone to develop a roll of film (a nice feature if you're taking pictures that you don't want other people to see), so you were willing to sacrifice a little quality for convenience and privacy.
Re-introducing Polaroid cameras today is nothing more that someone tryin
Re: Sometimes we have to let retro go (Score:2)
The advantage of polaroid is ability to have instant physical copy of the image.
Theybare great at parties and wddings as people can have multie copies of the night to take with them.
Re: (Score:3)
The advantage of polaroid is ability to have instant physical copy of the image.
Theybare great at parties and wddings as people can have multie copies of the night to take with them.
and porn without having send film out to be developed...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But it had a great commercial! Staring Ali McGraw, sung by Barry Manilow and guitar by Mickey Baker. With that combination you could sell tails to monkeys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could just use your phone with one of those mini portable wireless photo printers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sometimes we have to let retro go (Score:5, Insightful)
Polaroid was a very good solution to a need. To instantly image a scene. Until Kodak began producing reliable point and shoots, imaging was a very tricky and highly skilled procedure. And expensive.
The Brownie was around long before Land introduced his camera; and a quite good camera for its day.
Kodak brought down the cost by producing film that could be developed automatically and reliability with instruments that were largely idiot proof. A nationwide network of developers emerged. If you wish you could get vacation shots developed while on vacation in a few hours. But only Polaroid was instant.
There were reliable, cartridge loading cameras during the Polaroid era; but your point is correct. The instant picture was the draw, and once Polaroid developed a film that did not require you to coat the image after waiting to tear off the cover, they no doubt grew in popularity. The downside is the images were not very fade resistant. I still have my Dad's Polaroid Land Camera from the late 60's.
I suspect the new Polaroid will be a novelty item for fun use, given much amateur photography has been replaced by digital pone based devices. Still would be cool at a party.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was not the cartridge it was the machine developing and printing.
Correct. Cartridge based systems made P&S much similar since there was no film to thread nr did you ruin a roll by opening the back before rewinding. But even before that there were P&S that did just fine. In addition, it was easy to turn a camera into a P&S by setting f stops and shutter speeds to get the desired depth of field and exposure. You could dhot all day if you wanted without making any adjustments.
Re: (Score:2)
Polaroid was a very good solution to a need. To instantly image a scene.
To image a scene without having to involve the local 1 hour photo developing service. And perhaps the vice squad.
Idle rich (Score:2)
is how you get a lot of pollution from a gasoline engine.
Polaroid fans (Score:3)
I never figured out why everybody fans themselves Polaroids while they're waiting for them to develop.
Even today: If you take a photo with one of those new "Instax" cameras and give it to a five year old, they'll look at it first then start fanning themselves with it. Instax photos aren't even wet or anything.
Re:Polaroid fans (Score:4, Informative)
I never figured out why everybody fans themselves Polaroids while they're waiting for them to develop.
Even today: If you take a photo with one of those new "Instax" cameras and give it to a five year old, they'll look at it first then start fanning themselves with it. Instax photos aren't even wet or anything.
Back in the original Polaroid era, some of the early films required you to "fix" the image by running a fixer sponge over the print, leading to fanning to dry the fixer. Now, it's just an homage to the OG Polaroids.
Re:Polaroid fans (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I was a kid back when my uncle was fanning and tucking under his harm, but ISTR that here was also a temperature issue, too (keeping them warm enough in cold rooms, outside?)
Re: (Score:2)
59 Years Later (Score:1)
Nice, but (Score:3)
And Open SX-70 is a project to smarten up the SX-70 by replacing its 1970s circuit board with a tiny Arduino computer.
I'm waiting for an Open SR-71 [wikipedia.org] project ...
(Obviously for after fuel prices go down ...)
Boomers... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's always one.
Listen, zoomer. Photography is many things. One of those is the aesthetic. Analog photography is a niche market these days, but it hasn't lost its aesthetic.
What's your definition of quality, anyway? PIxel count? Sharpness? Focus? Composition? Lighting? Artistic merit? Communicative effectiveness? Guess which one of those isn't used to grade a photograph.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a suspicion that most of these new "instand" cameras are a novelty where the use will last one or two refils with film, and then end up in a drawer somewhere.
Contributing only to the vast amount of trash already being produced.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, unlike the vast quantities of perfectly-serviceable cell phones that are discarded because a new model comes along.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want instantly useful images, get a smartphone.
Slashdot when it's about their favorite media: "I don't want a digital copy! I want to own a DVD full of 1s and 0s!"
Slashdot when it's about others' media: "Look at these stupid dirty hipsters who are clinging to their stupid physical media."
Polariods are more important than you may think. (Score:4, Interesting)
Where's the family album now? When was the last time you looked through one?
Most people keep their family photos on their phone, and a surprisingly amount of them don't take a backup so they're lost when changing phones, I'm guilty of this too.
Sure a smartphone is smarter, faster, cheaper to use for photos, and you can print on a printer or get them printed for you, yet very few use this. Having an extra printer for this is just a major hassle and usually ends up in a thrift store somewhere, and very few use online services to get them printed.
The huge advantage with a Polaroid is that you have a picture - instantly, no computer needed, no download / upload procedure, you easily forget this - but with an instant camera you just take a bunch of pictures at the moment when it counts, and you'll be glad you kept those photos, and it doesn't require that you pull out your phone to show them off.
It has its place, it was the thing that was too useful to die, even when Polaroid thought the game was up, people wouldn't let it die, because it was too much of a good thing.
I hope they bring back the original format, or even bigger - not these small novelty versions that takes microscopic images, but the real deal. I have two of the original cameras myself, one of the traditional ones with flash, and another one with SLR and it's surprisingly fast to focus, and does a heck of a job doing so, it's WAY faster at autofocus than my smartphone, but "Quality" is not why you purchase an Instant camera, you do it because you don't want to fiddle with anything else, just shoot a picture and have it there for the moment - forever.
Long live the Polaroid!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with that.
But there's a few strenghts that the Polaroid camera had that made it timeless.
1) You could take a photo instantly, without having to go into menues and set up date / time / settings etc. when it had not been used for a long while.
2) The digital cameras with printing options often used a technique called Subliminal Ink Dye. However these were notoriously expensive, often WAY more expensive than the Polaroid instant film. These printers often had inferior resolution (albeit th
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, your comments are valid for current digital cameras. What I had in mind was a sort of Kickstarter idea for the dumbphone equivalent of a digital camera, basically a camera that just two things, save a JPEG onto the SD card and print the photo.
No. 1 (the menu problem) is easily fixed. Just strip down the interface to at most two questions for saving or printing.
The printing problem (No. 2) is harder. But maybe it's possible to produce a camera with an LED array that can "burn" images to the same Polaroi
Re: (Score:2)
Most people keep their family photos on their phone, and a surprisingly amount of them don't take a backup so they're lost when changing phones, I'm guilty of this too.
I think you'll find this is far fewer than expected with cloud sync being effectively opt out on many major platforms these days. I think quite the opposite, most people may not know how to delete photos even if they wanted to.
Re: (Score:2)
Yay, cloud sync that
1. Only lasts as long as I have an account
2. Only accessible as long as I have the password
3. Means I need a network connection to access (or a phone contract)
4. Means I need (sometimes) a specific tablet/computer/phone to display
5. Only has a limited capacity before I need to pay for more capacity (and keep paying or I lose the lot)
Or, you know, I could reach for the album off the shelf and just look at/show them...
As part of the connected elite and tech savvy society none of this bothe
Re: (Score:2)
I tried the Impossible (Score:4, Informative)
I have my dad's SX-70. It's a beautifully made device and so I thought that I should try some
of the Impossible film. As they admitted at the time that the chemistry just isn't available to
produce images equal to the quality of the past. Granted, the artifacts produced are unique
and interesting in their own way, but they are akin to listening to AM radio on a crystal set.
You get something, but don't expect fidelity. If the anomalies are the point, then I
suppose some people would be happy with it. Edwin Land though, would be aghast.
The openSX70 web site could use an editor (Score:3)
A human one, that is.
From TFA:
What does this even mean? Plenty of other embedded cruft that makes reading painful.
Digital killed photography... (Score:5, Insightful)
... at least for the masses.
Think about it for a moment.
Despite the instantaneous ability to take a photo, display it and indeed share it - with *anyone* on the planet that has internet access, how many photo's are actually physically stored?
I've got family albums of photo's - some are now close on 100 years old.
I have ZERO photo's from about 2005 onward, except randomly scattered in emails or on social media.
I cannot grab an album and go through it from that period onward.
We create photo's now at such an incredible rate, they have become meaningless in terms of being collected and stored.
So many of us are guilty of this - we have, hell, enough space on a tiny hand-held device to store thousands of photo's - and we snap and snap and snap away - but for the most part, do NOTHING with them.
We may share them, but we may as well be adding single grains of sand to the Sahara Desert for all the difference it makes.
I do wonder whether children or teens now, will have _anything_ in terms of photographic captures, to recall times past, when they hit 30, 40, 60, 80 years old.
Digital is fickle - you can destroy it in a second - you can destroy 100,000 photo's in the snap of a finger.
Destroying 100,000 physical photo's - hell, you'll notice that.
Digital has absolutely killed photography, in terms of a record for the masses.
Re:Digital killed photography... (Score:4, Interesting)
I've got family albums of photo's - some are now close on 100 years old.
I have ZERO photo's from about 2005 onward, except randomly scattered in emails or on social media. ...
I do wonder whether children or teens now, will have _anything_ in terms of photographic captures, to recall times past, when they hit 30, 40, 60, 80 years old.
Shortly after my 7 year old was born, I set up a Telegram group for the family members so we could share pictures of her amongst the family. Every year, I download all the images and comments, edit out the unnecessary stuff (e.g. "here's a link to a good car-seat"), then print them in a photo-book that I give as Christmas gifts to the family.
I really love that she'll have not just photos of herself when she was little, but also the responses and thoughts of the people who loved her.
I've also hear of people setting up an email account and sending emails to their child throughout their life with pictures, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
You think digital is fickle but for many it is not. Some of us have backups, you could nuke my house from orbit and all my digital photos will survive (though my negatives will be gone). You could destroy all electronics my girlfriend owns and yet hey pictures will remain on a mix of Facebook, OneDrive and Google photos.
Actually in many cases there is an opposite problem, you may actually want to remove image but find you can't.
I'm not worried about teens of today.
Now, it's okay (Score:2)
A home-movie that can only be viewed on an 8-inch screen: Which idiot thought that was a good idea? That makes it difficult to share them.
Today, everyone has a portable screen and a way of sharing 'home' movies, and of making them.
Bygones (Score:2)
Polaroid film was exceedingly expensive. In the beginning, so were Polaroid cameras. The real play was Polaroid stock, at the beginning. At some point, the novelty wore off, and so did the smell of horseradish from the fixer you had to apply to the print afterwards. When "One Hour Photo" kiosks came into the market at cheap prices, Polaroid was cooked.