First PX100 Photos

P

patois

Established
Local time
11:15 AM
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
153
View My Gallery
px100-2.jpg


px100-5.jpg


px100-1.jpg


I set my SX/70 to lighten and used a cold clip in my armpit to keep it warm and out of the sunlight.
 
That looks awful by any standard. I can still see how it might look interesting glued into a nice, hand crafted album documenting something really personal.. I will definitely get some, but if this is as good as it gets I will be disappointed. Are you satisfied with the film?

martin
 
What I've seen from this film so far doesn't look much better than spilled ink on a piece of paper. I do get the appeal of (original) Polaroid film and its unpredictable and experimental character but this is just taking it too far.
 
From what I understand there are constant improvements being made and that it should look better soon. I had fun shooting it but wouldn't invest a ton of money in PX100 because at $3 a shot it should look nicer.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
I just don't get the vibe. $3 bucks a pop for this?
Click to expand...

It's better than some of the other options :shrug: At least I think they look nice enough. It's kind of like watching a pertri dish reinvent something. If nothing else it's interesting to watch the process.

There's lots of things people do that I don't really care to do myself. But I can see the attraction.
 
They'll never care patois- posting anything is just more fuel for them to badmouth something that some of us can enjoy. I suspect the difficulty turns off a lot of people- plus they can always bit¢h about the cost compared to digital.

I'm a fan- the playfulness that SX-70 had in the 80's it has again. The thing I like is how the SX-70 now has some of the funkiness that the peel apart images had. I've been shooting the PX100 and the FadetoBlack- anyone that doesn't get PX100 will NEVER be able to understand the appeal of that- so there is more for us.

patois said:
From what I understand there are constant improvements being made and that it should look better soon. I had fun shooting it but wouldn't invest a ton of money in PX100 because at $3 a shot it should look nicer.
Click to expand...

Practice makes perfect. PX100 has a steep learning curve, but when it is nailed it is incredibly beautiful. Kinda like Kodachrome in that way.😀
 
If this was something that was actually a newly invented product you'd think ... "Ok, that's clever and looks like fun ... I might try some for the novelty factor!"

A photographer friend that I work with who's used polaroids previously wasn't aware of this 'Impossible Project' product. I explained to him about the group that purchased the equipment to re-release the product onto the market ... when he saw the test images released recently his comment was ... "Ok so they got the equipment but obviously not the recipe!"

I hope for the sake of the IP group they can improve this ... otherwise I suspect it's destined for the 'Tried but failed' catagory!
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but for Polaroids, they are awful. Polaroid film never had a steep learning curve. If you were talking about dye transfer printing, I could understand it would take some practice, but this is instant film...

I don't think this is going to revive instant photography, which is a pity...
 
I don't believe they (Imposible Project) are trying to duplicate the old recipe- they're trying to make another film. In this day of digital where everything can be so over controlled this is something like photography used to be- and therein lies the strength of this new film. If you want to have absolute control shoot digital or a film you know well. If one can enjoy and be inspired by the lack of total predictability then this is a film to use. I'm getting a real jolt in the eye with PX100, and quite liking the two hits from the first pack. I shot a lot of SX-70 in the 80s, and would often get only one keeper in two packs- but I experimented a lot and am a better photographer for it.

So far I'm inclined to think this new film allows more control than the old SX-70- temperature really effects the image, as does additional light exposure after the image is spit out. Never had as much with the old film.
 
I work in the semiconductor industry, where transferring high-technology processes from one Fab to another has to be done seamlessly and exactly, so that the customer can't tell, quality wise, where the part was made. Part of the ISO9000-series of certifications.

It's obvious that this "first run" off the old machinery is being sold "as is", for its obvious artistic merit, and marketed accordingly. I actually can't fault them for doing this, considering the economics at work. If they can succeed in building a dedicated fan base, then they will have the money to invest in a more sophisticated process, one that is less temperature and ambient light sensitive, and delivers a higher D-max.

We under-estimate all of the sophisticated engineering that went into the original Polaroid materials, until we see what happens when you try to DIY without the advantage of all the legacy intellectual property in place. They may have purchased the equipment and facilities, but they didn't purchase the legacy process from Polaroid.

I wish them luck; I have an original and complete SX-70 kit, including the leather carrying case, waiting for some good film packs. But it will take more engineering before I'll spend my hard-earned dollars.

~Joe
 
They weren't able to do the old recipe. Many of the ingredients simply were no longer available.
I think they've done a fairly clever thing here, releasing the product at this stage of "quality" development. The low fidelity world seems to be the most enthusiastic and growing segment of film users. They can market this to them now, and "improved" products as they are developed.
I've bought 2 boxes to give it a spin. If I wanted sharp instants with accurate color, I'd shoot instax or fuji pack film. If I wanted something close to repeatable perfection, I'd shoot digital.
 
Finder said:
I'm sorry, but for Polaroids, they are awful. Polaroid film never had a steep learning curve. If you were talking about dye transfer printing, I could understand it would take some practice, but this is instant film...
Click to expand...

This isn't the old Polaroid film!!

I for one very much like the fact that one can actually think and learn something new that doesn't involve a computer and isn't always perfectly repeatable. Sorry that so many folks think this is crap- but maybe you should get out of the way and let those of us that can enjoy it enjoy it in peace.

withmyheadfullofblood.jpg
 
sepiareverb said:
This isn't the old Polaroid film!!

I for one very much like the fact that one can actually think and learn something new that doesn't involve a computer and isn't always perfectly repeatable. Sorry that so many folks think this is crap- but maybe you should get out of the way and let those of us that can enjoy it enjoy it in peace.

withmyheadfullofblood.jpg
Click to expand...


I see your point but this is a forum where we are free to express our opinions positive or otherwise ... for a group where everyone thinks the same way with mutual worship try the local church! (no offence to christians intended) 😛

I hope it succeeds though because there truly is too much 'same' in the world but I personally won't be spending $3.00 a shot for this ... I'd rather try pinhole or dye transfer!
 
sepiareverb said:
This isn't the old Polaroid film!!

I for one very much like the fact that one can actually think and learn something new that doesn't involve a computer and isn't always perfectly repeatable. Sorry that so many folks think this is crap- but maybe you should get out of the way and let those of us that can enjoy it enjoy it in peace.

withmyheadfullofblood.jpg
Click to expand...
I think I understand what your preaching, but didn’t you just perfectly repeat a Polaroid print and post it with a computer? Bill
 
With the original Polaroid films there used to be a sort of predictable unpredictability. You could experiment with it and be surprised by the result but there always was a result. With this new film it seems like one needs to take all kinds of precautions just so the thing doesn't turn out blank and even when there is a result it's just barely visible.

It just seems like those guys at the impossible project think that Polaroid users are suckers who will buy anything at any price. And it seems that they're right.
 
My (clearly cynical) view is that they spent a lot of investors money trying to produce something similar to Polaroid, failed, and decided the way to market the failure was to pitch it as a new artistic medium. But for those who like it and can afford it, I say knock yourselves out! You only have to please yourself with the results.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
My (clearly cynical) view is that they spent a lot of investors money trying to produce something similar to Polaroid, failed, and decided the way to market the failure was to pitch it as a new artistic medium. But for those who like it and can afford it, I say knock yourselves out! You only have to please yourself with the results.
Click to expand...

I've been following their progress for about a year; I was given an old Polaroid and in the process of trying to find film for it found out it had been discontinued (ended up sparking an interest in cameras and photography in general and now I somehow have 7 cameras).

Anyhow, right from the beginning, they certainly seemed to be targeting that whole artistic/low-fi bunch, that crowd who love rubbishy old plastic toy cameras and love to take blurry colour photos of their friends wearing 80s sunglasses and odd hats. The same crowd who seems to consume a significant proportion of my local camera shop's 120 film it would seem.

A sound business decision to target this lot, as they're enthusiastic, loaded with disposable income (have you seen the prices for Lomography gear?!), a growing segment of film consumers, and are forgiving -- even enthusiastic -- about even really awful products. The lower the fidelity the cooler it is, don't you know? 😎

Wasn't Florian Kaps involved with the Lomography crowd anyway? Was he one of the founders, or am I confused?

Anyway, I think it's pretty neat, wouldn't buy it myself (yet?) but fun to follow their progress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom