# Who says the Polaroid concept is dead.



## table1349 (Oct 24, 2016)

I want one of these.  I-1 Instant Camera


----------



## cgw (Oct 25, 2016)

Ever checked out Impossible's film prices and quality?


----------



## Braineack (Oct 25, 2016)

"it costs a lot of money to look this cheap" - dolly parton


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 25, 2016)

They could have at least doctored those sample images with better color.


----------



## Fred von den Berg (Oct 25, 2016)

Impossible film is really very unreliable and extremely expensive. Fuji instant film is great on the other hand and, whilst not inexpensive, much cheaper. Won't fit the camera in the link, though.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 25, 2016)

why can't they just make a small inkjet printer attached to a digital camera.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 25, 2016)

I'm getting the Leica Sofort


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 25, 2016)

Hey, Gary!!! where have you been lately? This is turning into old home week. And I didn't need to see that camera... lol I'll probably stick to my SX-70 and my Colorpack, etc.

They do make a Polaroid with a 'printer' attached! well more or less, the one that you load with Zink paper, take a picture digitally, and out pops the picture.

Worlds colliding, Polaroid and digital...

I haven't had too much difficulty with The Impossible Project films, a bit of a learning curve but I got in the habit of covering the picture (stick it under something or in my pocket or whatever to keep it in the dark - which you don't have to do anymore). The film does start to dry up at some point so it doesn't last in the fridge for years like Polaroid peel apart film. I find that they (integral film images) don't scan true to the originals (and you can't go by pictures of pictures on a website). The scans just don't seem to capture what you actually get in that little packet of chemistry and paper that pops out of the camera. Maybe since it's not flat like paper has something to do with it.

I think the cost of anything is relative, I'd rather spend money on what I enjoy such as shooting Polaroids (within reason) instead of something else.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 25, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> why can't they just make a small inkjet printer attached to a digital camera.


There are small carry around versions for just that purpose.


----------



## petrochemist (Oct 25, 2016)

I just don't see the appeal, a bulky & expensive way to get shots worse than your phone produces.
Analog does have some appeal but even if this film was no more than 35mm film/printing, I'd prefer the 35mm (or 120) route.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Oct 25, 2016)

Im a peel apart fan but my Fuji Instax is fun for vacation and such


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 25, 2016)

petrochemist said:


> I just don't see the appeal, a bulky & expensive way to get shots worse than your phone produces.
> Analog does have some appeal but even if this film was no more than 35mm film/printing, I'd prefer the 35mm (or 120) route.


Hey, don't be such a downer, their next new idea is a stone slab and chisel for that neo-retro look and appeal. (The stones will come with a variety of pre-carved borders to choose from.)


----------



## cgw (Oct 26, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> why can't they just make a small inkjet printer attached to a digital camera.



Check out the Fuji SP-2...


----------



## compur (Oct 26, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> why can't they just make a small inkjet printer attached to a digital camera.



Why can't they just make a Polaroid SX70?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 26, 2016)

That's my favorite... it's a joy to use.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 26, 2016)

compur said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > why can't they just make a small inkjet printer attached to a digital camera.
> ...


They did, the target audience moved on to other things and there was only a tiny fraction of the market left, not nearly enough to justify the costs of running large factories designed to cater to a very large audience. The shareholders would have sold in droves had things continued as they were.


----------



## cgw (Oct 26, 2016)

vintagesnaps said:


> That's my favorite... it's a joy to use.



Polaroid's SX-70: The Art and Science of the Nearly Impossible


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 26, 2016)

Edwin Land was the man!

Wonder if he would have ever thought people would still be using them today? Not that all that many people do, but still. Besides buying one I had to have a 'back up', and a Stormtrooper, and maybe I need a Porvair model...


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 26, 2016)

Instant film: Take a shot and wait around 4  minutes for a rather poor quality image to appear in a 4x4 size print. Cost: $1.00 to $3.00. A print that does not age particularly well.

Digital: Take a shot and wait less than a minute for a very high quality photo to appear in an 8x10 (or 8.5 x 11) size print (with the option to print it at much larger sizes up to 44" x any length). Cost: a few cents for an 8x10. A print that looks as good in 200 years as it does today.

Hmmmm.... decisions, decisions...


----------



## compur (Oct 26, 2016)

Yeah, digital shooters are lucky. Their cameras, lenses, computers, printers, ink and paper cost nothing. The stores give them away for free. All you have to do is hand them a little piece of plastic for a few seconds and bingo! 

The other day I bought an SX70 at an estate sale for $5 and a pack of film will cost me $15. That's a whole $20 I will have wasted when I could have had a new digital camera outfit, computer, printer, paper, and ink for nothing!

I sure wish I was as smart as those digital guys who shoot all the photos they want for free! Film photography is so expensive!!!!


----------



## Piccell (Oct 26, 2016)

compur said:


> Yeah, digital shooters are lucky. Their cameras, lenses, computers, printers, ink and paper cost nothing. The stores give them away for free. All you have to do is hand them a little piece of plastic for a few seconds and bingo!
> 
> The other day I bought an SX70 at an estate sale for $5 and a pack of film will cost me $15. That's a whole $20 I will have wasted when I could have had a new digital camera outfit, computer, printer, paper, and ink for nothing!
> 
> I sure wish I was as smart as those digital guys who shoot all the photos they want for free! Film photography is so expensive!!!!


Digital pushed film to the small dark corners of the world without a fight for good reason.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 26, 2016)

The Future of Film Photography

Why Film Is Not Dead: Meet The Camera Shop that Specialise Only in Film Photography | Fstoppers

Fashion Photographers Return to Film


----------



## Piccell (Oct 26, 2016)

It's a little less than it once was don't you think?


----------



## table1349 (Oct 26, 2016)

2016 January Cipa report: Digital camera sales dropped by 20%! - mirrorlessrumors

DSLR & Mirrorless Camera Market Shrinking Rapidly | cinema5D


----------



## Piccell (Oct 26, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> 2016 January Cipa report: Digital camera sales dropped by 20%! - mirrorlessrumors
> 
> DSLR & Mirrorless Camera Market Shrinking Rapidly | cinema5D


Yep, the market is now stabilizing again after so many moved to digital all at once, the market was saturated for a while and went into a decline. Markets generally self correct when there is a huge shift to a new product.


----------



## cgw (Oct 27, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> The Future of Film Photography
> 
> Why Film Is Not Dead: Meet The Camera Shop that Specialise Only in Film Photography | Fstoppers
> 
> Fashion Photographers Return to Film



Exceptions that don't exactly prove the rule--sorry. If you're lucky enough to live/work in a city whose film infrastructure is still intact, film can work; if not, you're looking at expense, delays, and inconvenience clients aren't usually willing to accept. Pricey film and scarce lab services(processing/scanning/printing) discourage amateurs whose commitment to film is iffy. Not to say there aren't workarounds--I've gotten good at those--but film use just isn't picking up enough in many large N. American cities to resuscitate what we've lost since 2000.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 27, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> Instant film: Take a shot and wait around 4  minutes for a rather poor quality image to appear in a 4x4 size print. Cost: $1.00 to $3.00. A print that does not age particularly well.
> 
> Digital: Take a shot and wait less than a minute for a very high quality photo to appear in an 8x10 (or 8.5 x 11) size print (with the option to print it at much larger sizes up to 44" x any length). Cost: a few cents for an 8x10. A print that looks as good in 200 years as it does today.
> 
> Hmmmm.... decisions, decisions...


But if you know what you are doing you can turn it into a 4x4 negative and print bigger than your digital [emoji1] 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## gsgary (Oct 27, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> Instant film: Take a shot and wait around 4  minutes for a rather poor quality image to appear in a 4x4 size print. Cost: $1.00 to $3.00. A print that does not age particularly well.
> 
> Digital: Take a shot and wait less than a minute for a very high quality photo to appear in an 8x10 (or 8.5 x 11) size print (with the option to print it at much larger sizes up to 44" x any length). Cost: a few cents for an 8x10. A print that looks as good in 200 years as it does today.
> 
> Hmmmm.... decisions, decisions...


That's great if you want a plastic looking photo

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 27, 2016)

gsgary said:


> Advanced Photo said:
> 
> 
> > Instant film: Take a shot and wait around 4  minutes for a rather poor quality image to appear in a 4x4 size print. Cost: $1.00 to $3.00. A print that does not age particularly well.
> ...


If by plastic you mean realistic, then yep.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 27, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Advanced Photo said:
> ...


Digital is not realistic too smooth and lifeless 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 27, 2016)

gsgary said:


> Advanced Photo said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


lol. Not in my opinion. When I look at a scene in real life, I see accurate colors and no grain. That, to me is realistic. When I go back and see it again in 25 years, I see the true colors again, the Polaroid has changed colors quite a lot by then, the digital print is still accurate, that, to me is realistic.
I like some of the art of film, but realism is not its strong suit.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 27, 2016)

What the heck are you looking at? lol I don't think you can make assumptions either way. if you're getting a lot of grain you're either shooting in low light or using a crappy lens or doing something wrong! lol Unless you're going for that effect for some particular reason (because someone wants maybe a grainy grungy look for a dark dingy subject or mood or whatever).

I think it's a matter of figuring out how to use whatever technology you're using. I don't expect to get the same type or quality image with a Polaroid (with integral film) as I would with 35mm film or peel apart film or a digital camera. There is so much over processed poor quality digital imagery around that apparently poor quality can be done in a variety of ways! lol That's not limited to just film...


----------



## gsgary (Oct 28, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Advanced Photo said:
> ...


Very little grain in this
[https://gsgary.smugmug.com/Fuji-GW690/i-kwgMkvwIMG]

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## gsgary (Oct 28, 2016)

Fuji GW690 - Gary Clarke

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 28, 2016)

There is no image.


----------



## compur (Oct 28, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> lol. Not in my opinion. When I look at a scene in real life, I see accurate colors and no grain. That, to me is realistic. *When I go back and see it again in 25 years, I see the true colors again, the Polaroid has changed colors quite a lot by then, the digital print is still accurate*...



Where did you see a 25-year old digital print?


----------



## gsgary (Oct 28, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> There is no image.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 28, 2016)

gsgary said:


> Advanced Photo said:
> 
> 
> > There is no image.


That's not a bad picture for a polaroid instant picture.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 28, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Advanced Photo said:
> ...


Just shows you don't know what your taking about it is not a Polaroid looks nothing like one

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 28, 2016)

gsgary said:


> Advanced Photo said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


Yep. I know. And your comment missed the fact that the picture you showed has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, namely the polaroid concept of instant photography which is precisely what my comment was designed to point out.
It seems I know more than you might guess.
Never assume what someone else knows based on your own misunderstanding of what you read.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 28, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Advanced Photo said:
> ...


Just like we are waiting to see a 25 year old digital print

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 28, 2016)

gsgary said:


> Just like we are waiting to see a 25 year old digital print



It's nothing like that at all. Do you understand how print permanence is determined in the industry and what standards are used by all manufacturers of inks, dyes and papers (with the notable exception of Kodak that uses far less illumination at only 120 lux as opposed to the 450 lux used in the rest of the industry)? As someone that makes their living off of printing and selling photos I am fairly well versed in the standards and practices of the industry as a faded print does not do anything to add to my reputation and sell others that see the print on the idea of also buying one of my pieces. In this case "word of sight" is as important as word of mouth and maybe more so.
If you are not as well versed in the prediction of print permanence and the testing that is used to determine the estimated lifetime of a print whether it's a traditional dye sublimation print a dye inkjet print or a pigmented dye inkjet print (and asking to see a 25 year old digital print implies just that), here is some informative reading that all photographers should be familiar with if you ever want to print a photo you take.

Print Permanence

(note: Epson has, since this paper was written, made even greater strides in the area of print permanence and has demonstrated the ability of their UltraChrome HD pigmented inks to last for the equivalent of up to 200 years in industry standard viewing light.)

The life of digital prints can be further lengthened to greater times than the test results yield by the practice of framing the prints under glass. Normal glass has apx. 30% UV filtration, museum glass can extend the life even longer than the industry claims by filtering out up to 99% of the UV light and any glass will help reduce the effects of humidity and atmospheric contaminants.

By way of contrast, Polaroids are recommended to be store in the dark and preferably in a cool climate. (source) (source 2)
It's hard to enjoy a picture in a dark box. I prefer them on my wall with a good viewing light on them.

I fully understand that there are people who don't care about image quality or permanence and that, for them, is perfectly fine and the Polaroid instant picture is a wonderful thing. I prefer a higher quality image and a longer life for my prints and I prefer to be able to display them in a well lighted environment (it increases sales when folks can see the pictures I am selling them)

If I am going to take the time to conceptualize a photo, frame it how I like in the viewfinder and snap a shot, (even for the shots that are taken in an (pardon the pun) instant,) I'd like to have more options than a single print stored in a shoebox under a bed in the guestroom with the heat turned off. That's just my personal preference, and to those of you that don't see it the same way, I am glad you can enjoy your Polaroid shots.  Happy Shooting, everyone!


----------



## gsgary (Oct 28, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Just like we are waiting to see a 25 year old digital print
> ...


I print in the darkroom and produce prints that will last longer than digital prints, silver prints are proven digital is not

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 28, 2016)

If you bothered reading it was stated that If stored in the dark, with low humidity, traditional silver halide prints may last from 50 to more than 100 years. If exposed to light, the colors will deteriorate at a more rapid pace. This deterioration will vary widely between manufacturers’ products and the levels of illumination and ultraviolet light to which a print has been exposed.

It was also stated that Epson has designed a pigmented dye and paper combination that can last up to 200 years.

Last time I checked, 200 > 100.

So, to paraphrase your own (ridiculous) question, How many of your prints have lasted for 100 years so far?

Silly isn't it?

It seems from this conversation that what I can teach, some people can't learn.
hmmm... new signature idea


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 28, 2016)

B&W silver images and the negatives last indefinitely it seems. Now color, not so much, there must have been some funky things going on with film and chemistry in the '80s.

But anything done digitally, I don't think we can really know yet. They can say the ink will last a hundred years or more but of course we won't find out will we? And if the technology changes, then what exists now won't exist unless it's transferred to any new technology that develops. The thing is, it doesn't exist in a physical way unless you make prints. So if the technology is gone, so are the pictures in the existing format.

We know early B&W photos and tintypes etc. are still around from at least the civil war. Very early in photography, some images weren't stable and those that survived have to be protected now. The only example that comes to mind offhand is the Niepce taken of his roof that's in a museum in Texas and on display on a limited basis then is stored in darkness. But I don't think photos need any more protection than anything does from long exposure to sunlight (fabric can fade, it just depends on how lightfast dyes are, etc.). I think there are a number of variables to consider with any process.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 28, 2016)

So back to Polaroids (that is what we were talking about wasn't it?? lol). I did get an Impossible Project image to go redscale, accidently. Now to see if I can do it on purpose... I shoot integral film images more for fun and for experimental results.

The peel apart film lasts at least 10 years in the fridge (although I found some blue had shifted but the sepia was fine - last of the Polaroid films, Giambarba edition). I don't know how long the images will last, but I had one accepted into a juried exhibit and displayed so if you know how to use the technology, you can get good results.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 28, 2016)

vintagesnaps said:


> B&W silver images and the negatives last indefinitely it seems. Now color, not so much, there must have been some funky things going on with film and chemistry in the '80s.
> 
> But anything done digitally, I don't think we can really know yet. They can say the ink will last a hundred years or more but of course we won't find out will we? And if the technology changes, then what exists now won't exist unless it's transferred to any new technology that develops. The thing is, it doesn't exist in a physical way unless you make prints. So if the technology is gone, so are the pictures in the existing format.
> 
> We know early B&W photos and tintypes etc. are still around from at least the civil war. Very early in photography, some images weren't stable and those that survived have to be protected now. The only example that comes to mind offhand is the Niepce taken of his roof that's in a museum in Texas and on display on a limited basis then is stored in darkness. But I don't think photos need any more protection than anything does from long exposure to sunlight (fabric can fade, it just depends on how lightfast dyes are, etc.). I think there are a number of variables to consider with any process.


This is only true if you think science and testing is all bogus, in which case nothing is possible.

If you are not willing to accept scientific test results that have proven accurate on predicting the life of other already known methods including silver halide then that is your prerogative however you are letting emotion get in the way and keep you insulated from all the data that can help make your prints better and last longer.

Some people still think a camera will steal the soul of the subject and some have learned from science and testing.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 28, 2016)

I didn't yet anyway look at all the links or know how they test dyes etc. I know with fabrics there were some years that fabrics had color washing out, etc. I think since then there have been advances so that fabrics are colorfast and still safer ecologically.

I'm thinking too of the entire process, that at least inkjet prints are ink squirted on paper, that it's just on the surface. The photo paper has the image actually exposed into the paper then run thru developer etc. (the silver grains, I don't know exactly how to explain it). Then the gloss acts as a protective layer. I know I've splattered some drops of water on a print and was able to run it back thru fixer (which is basically the layer of hardened gloss once it dries) and couldn't see where water droplets had gotten on it and I had a nice new shiny layer of gloss.

I remember when there was flooding on the east coast a few years ago and reading about art galleries affected that lost all the digital prints. They were unsalvageable. The wet prints were able to be restored (at least some, maybe not everything). Of course that's an extreme example but that media seems so far to have held up for decades. We do have archival papers now that should hold up better than some papers that haven't fared so well which should be a benefit using inks on paper.


----------



## compur (Oct 28, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> It seems from this conversation that what I can teach, some people can't learn.



I don't know how you put up with us! It must be very trying for a person of your superior intellect.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 28, 2016)

compur said:


> Advanced Photo said:
> 
> 
> > It seems from this conversation that what I can teach, some people can't learn.
> ...


LOL  A person who can read? Yeah, that is a special thing.


----------



## thereyougo! (Oct 29, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> If you bothered reading it was stated that If stored in the dark, with low humidity, traditional silver halide prints may last from 50 to more than 100 years. If exposed to light, the colors will deteriorate at a more rapid pace. This deterioration will vary widely between manufacturers’ products and the levels of illumination and ultraviolet light to which a print has been exposed.
> 
> It was also stated that Epson has designed a pigmented dye and paper combination that can last up to 200 years.
> 
> ...



I think I might place you on ignore.  Not just because of your arrogant attitude, but the advert in your signature smacks of spam every time I see you post.  Makes me doubt every word you say because the more you post, the more you are advertising.


----------



## jcdeboever (Oct 29, 2016)

gsgary said:


> Fuji GW690 - Gary Clarke
> 
> Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


I enjoyed looking at those, thanks for sharing Gary.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 29, 2016)

thereyougo! said:


> Advanced Photo said:
> 
> 
> > If you bothered reading it was stated that If stored in the dark, with low humidity, traditional silver halide prints may last from 50 to more than 100 years. If exposed to light, the colors will deteriorate at a more rapid pace. This deterioration will vary widely between manufacturers’ products and the levels of illumination and ultraviolet light to which a print has been exposed.
> ...


That's fine, thank you. 


Oh, and thanks for the ad in your siggy too. 
My Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/singingsnapper/

Pentax 645Z + several Pentax medium format lenses

Sony A7RII


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 29, 2016)

vintagesnaps said:


> I didn't yet anyway look at all the links or know how they test dyes etc. I know with fabrics there were some years that fabrics had color washing out, etc. I think since then there have been advances so that fabrics are colorfast and still safer ecologically.
> 
> I'm thinking too of the entire process, that at least inkjet prints are ink squirted on paper, that it's just on the surface. The photo paper has the image actually exposed into the paper then run thru developer etc. (the silver grains, I don't know exactly how to explain it). Then the gloss acts as a protective layer. I know I've splattered some drops of water on a print and was able to run it back thru fixer (which is basically the layer of hardened gloss once it dries) and couldn't see where water droplets had gotten on it and I had a nice new shiny layer of gloss.
> 
> I remember when there was flooding on the east coast a few years ago and reading about art galleries affected that lost all the digital prints. They were unsalvageable. The wet prints were able to be restored (at least some, maybe not everything). Of course that's an extreme example but that media seems so far to have held up for decades. We do have archival papers now that should hold up better than some papers that haven't fared so well which should be a benefit using inks on paper.


Inkjet is not just on the surface, that is a common misconception.

As for the rest, the paper and inks combination is very critical to a good long lasting print, you cannot just use and ink and any paper and get a good result. If the prints you are talking about were easily ruined, they were not properly made prints and most likely a mis match of inks and paper, maybe not even good inks.

Not all digital prints are created equal.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 29, 2016)

They were in museums and art galleries in NYC, I imagine that's going to be better quality than most.

So now we're into 5 pages on Polaroids, and how many of you actually shoot Polaroids? lol I wouldn't think people would care all that much.

Gryph, what did you start? lol I had to go back and look to see it was about the new camera that basically takes and records the picture digitally onto Impossible Project film. So I'm back to where I was, I'll just use an old Polaroid camera that I already have! Although I wonder if the quality is different, I get sharper results with the SX-70 being an SLR than my old 600 series camera (an oldie but a goodie).


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 29, 2016)

vintagesnaps said:


> They were in museums and art galleries in NYC, I imagine that's going to be better quality than most.
> 
> So now we're into 5 pages on Polaroids, and how many of you actually shoot Polaroids? lol I wouldn't think people would care all that much.
> 
> Gryph, what did you start? lol I had to go back and look to see it was about the new camera that basically takes and records the picture digitally onto Impossible Project film. So I'm back to where I was, I'll just use an old Polaroid camera that I already have! Although I wonder if the quality is different, I get sharper results with the SX-70 being an SLR than my old 600 series camera (an oldie but a goodie).


I see. The important hing is not where they were displayed, but how and when they were printed and using what type of materials. Not all photographers know all there is to know about making prints, for that, a printer is a better person to talk to.
I had an SX70, it was the one with the brown leatherette case on it. It was good for what it was, but it's been in a drawer for so many years unused since the tech improvements have left it in the dust.
Good in it's day though.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 29, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> > They were in museums and art galleries in NYC, I imagine that's going to be better quality than most.
> ...


For me digital was to clinical so I went back to film 100% mostly b+w, digital can't beat film for b+w

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## thereyougo! (Oct 29, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > Advanced Photo said:
> ...



Mine isn't a hyperlinked ad like yours. Mine is simply a URL to my Flickr page nothing more because I haven't figured out to hyperlink. Yours is a hyperlinked advertising logo and one might argue that you post simply to get your ad in front of people. 

Quit your attitude and you might learn something yourself.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 29, 2016)

thereyougo! said:


> Advanced Photo said:
> 
> 
> > thereyougo! said:
> ...


Sorry, it's just an email link to me.  Hope you aren't disappointed.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 29, 2016)

gsgary said:


> Advanced Photo said:
> 
> 
> > vintagesnaps said:
> ...


I agree, film is not a bad thing. I shoot movies on film and not digital. This thread is about instant film though and that's another animal.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 29, 2016)

I bought an SX-70, and a 'backup' (that's my story and I'm stickin' to it! lol). I use them now. The 600 black rainbow one I have is from, I don't know, the 90s maybe? Still works. You can use the current technology to scan something if you want copies or want to put them online. You can combine the technologies, which is apparently what the new camera does (that started the thread). You don't have to do one or the other, or you can choose what you like best.

I like shooting B&W film too. I don't have access to a darkroom now but love doing darkroom work so want that option down the road. I find it more workable to go from film to a digital format than to go from digital to a film negative (which is supposedly possible but more tricky but I haven't tried it to know for sure).


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 29, 2016)

Who can tell after 5 pages what this about?!?!!! lol I keep thinking what are we talking about again?? I think Gryph just said he wanted that new camera... if I didn't already have Polaroids I might be looking at it too.


----------



## table1349 (Oct 29, 2016)

vintagesnaps said:


> Who can tell after 5 pages what this about?!?!!! lol I keep thinking what are we talking about again?? I think Gryph just said he wanted that new camera... if I didn't already have Polaroids I might be looking at it too.


It looks fun with a manual mode and that ring flash.  Could be fun to play around with.


----------

