Photos from the Impossible I-1 ...

Huss said:
I'm w/ Spanik. These frankly , apart from the B&W, look awful. And the falafal shot - that is awful too and that is meant to be the shot that is meant to demonstrate a control? It's washed out and blurry.
My Instax produces such better shots it's not even funny. And I didn't think those were particularly good!
It's interesting when a camera cannot produce technically decent results the excuse is given that it's actually artistic. It's not, and here's why. Art is not created by the tool, but by the user. Otherwise one could argue that all it takes to make an artist is to pick up one of these cameras. Because every shot will be blurry, out of focus, washed out. Which means it's art...

I am not anti Impossible project. I want them to succeed but praising it so far is like telling your kid he's done so well for his 8th place medal. I have an SX70 and a packet of Impossible Project B&W film so I am an Impossible Project customer, and I'm hoping that I can get something cool out of that. The only shots that I liked above were those taken w/ the B&W film.
Click to expand...

So you don't like what Impossible film is doing.
Note that I don't care, it's no skin of my back, nor do I agree with your sophistic musings.

It would be nice to have a thread on this forum without the bile and innuendo for once. Just say you don't like the results and let it go.

G
 
Godfrey said:
No. It was unnecessary to go on about a theory of camera technology and art and all that baloney.

G
Click to expand...

From Huss' comment: "Art is not created by the tool, but by the user."

Interesting and thought provoking. What if I was into relief printing and chose woodcuts over relief etching and linocuts? Doesn't the tool effect the outcome? Same with cameras in my opinion. Impossible, pinhole, wet plate collodion, Photoshop, Leica MM.. don't those tools effect the outcome and go down a different path with the artist? I have seen some great polaroid and Impossible photos. Haven't created any yet but I keep trying. Here is my "photo" for the day.. It started out as a mistake. Is it art now? Or Art with a capital A? Or just garbage maybe?

Sometimes things don't go exactly as planned:


Lemonade by Tom Hart, on Flickr
 
thart2009 said:
From Huss' comment: "Art is not created by the tool, but by the user."

Interesting and thought provoking. What if I was into relief printing and chose woodcuts over relief etching and linocuts? Doesn't the tool effect the outcome? Same with cameras in my opinion. Impossible, pinhole, wet plate collodion, Photoshop, Leica MM.. don't those tools effect the outcome and go down a different path with the artist? I have seen some great polaroid and Impossible photos. Haven't created any yet but I keep trying. Here is my "photo" for the day.. It started out as a mistake. Is it art now? Or Art with a capital A? Or just garbage maybe?

Sometimes things don't go exactly as planned:
Click to expand...

Certainly: I have different cameras for precisely this reason.

Is it necessary to make disparaging comments about a manufacturer's products because they don't appeal to you personally? I think that's wrong, or at least narrow mindedness.

I like your art. Reminds me of some of the highly manipulated work done back in Polaroid SX-70 Time Zero film days. They produced special 'art' versions of the SX-70 film that were even more manipulable with styli after the technique became popular.

Photography is not so narrow an area of endeavor as what Huss' disparagement of The Impossible Project's films and instant film cameras implies. I think I'll charge up the 66/6 Instant Pinhole camera next ... 🙂

G
 
I loaded some Impossible "Lucky Eight" 600 color version 2 into the I-1 today. No time to do much shooting; all I made with it so far are a couple of snaps of a friend recuperating at the hospital after surgery. They look good ... normal Polaroid looking prints ... but not quite as nice on the color (a touch green-blue overall with weak reds, although nice sharpness).

What really struck me, however, was how much faster the version 3 film processes. With v3, you can see the images begin to emerge in about four minutes and within an hour they're just about done. With v2, it was about thirty minutes before anything became visible at all, and several hours before they get close to their finish quality.

That's some real, solid progress on the film. I just ordered twelve new packs of color and look forward to using it.

G
 
So, the question is: the tool or the user? Interesting, maybe worthwhile a thread of his own...
IMO is simply like this: if I want to make a docu-projerct showing how a certain landscape is, or how buildings are in a certain area I'll use my M7 or my FM2, or even my x1 as I did in this photo or in this other.

When the my vision is for a project with a less realistic look, more dreamy atmosphere a tool like a Polaroid camera with the Impossible film is IMO a valid choice to obtain a soft less exact imagine, like this one.

Inspired by a recent thread about wabi-sabi I'm working on a project related to this concept and the tool I selected was the SX-70 camera with an ND filter and the Black and Green Duotone film:why? because it has the uncertain, a margin of mistake in the photos it produces, like this one.

Let's revers this thought: if I use a certain tool I know what to expect from it, and it means I'm ready to accept the limitations and use them in a creative way.

It's clear the tool itself is only a tool, but the user selects the appropriate tool according to his project.


As a photographer I like to have different tool in my box and for this reason I like what the guys at Impossible are doing and try to support them, with my limited resources. I bought Impossible films from the beginning even if the technical quality was at least poor, but if we only wait to have the perfect film without any support this will never appear.

Sorry for long post but I wanted to add my voice here.

robert

PS: being this an I-1 image thread I didn't like to spoil it with pictures from other cameras, so I decided to just post the links to them.
By the way I'm leaving for a short trip (to meet friends and relax where photography is only a collateral activity) and I'll have in my bag the M7 and The I-1 ...
 
Godfrey, I've had some success scanning Impossible prints by putting them back into the plastic Instant film holder and then placing that face down on the Epson scanner glass - the film holder gives a gap of under 1mm between print and glass, avoiding Newton's rings.
cheers,
 
lynnb said:
Godfrey, I've had some success scanning Impossible prints by putting them back into the plastic Instant film holder and then placing that face down on the Epson scanner glass - the film holder gives a gap of under 1mm between print and glass, avoiding Newton's rings.
Click to expand...

That's a great idea! Thank you! I hadn't thought of that. 🙂

It doesn't help when you want to capture the paper framing as well, but that's another challenge. That might be better managed with compositing ... good exposure for the paper frame is often well off what represents good exposure for the image. One could capture representative frames of all the different paper types that can be applied as borders on a per-image basis.

fun fun fun...

G
 
Mackinaw said:
This probably deserves its own thread, but it looks like MINT is going to introduce a new instant camera next week. And looking at their website, this new camera will take both IP film as well as Instax. Very interesting I'd say.

https://mint-camera.com/en/news/game-changer-2016-special-event
Click to expand...

Oh yes, it will be interesting to see what they come up with too! They're SLR670a and SLR670m are very good reworks on the SX-70, and the TLR they've done is delightful. (I'm surprised I haven't seen more interest in the TLR on this forum. I've only been resisting from the point of view of "yet another film format to keep in stock...")

We'll have to open a new thread for this new camera.

G
 
aizan said:
why does impossible project film take so long to develop and need to be shielded from light?
Click to expand...

There's no real answer to that other than "that's the way it was." Getting the opacifier to work well was evidently very tricky, as has been getting processing speed up to Polaroid standards, never mind meeting Polaroid color standards.

Current revision B&W and color emulsions are much more lightproof coming out of the camera and process much much faster. Development continues ...

G
 
Thanks!

Yes, I like the special editions too. The Lucky Eight has been wonderful fun ... Sadly, I only have one pack left. I'd like to see them do that one again next year with the v3 color materials.

I have a few more Magenta and Cyanographic packs, too; have a Magenta in the camera now. Fun stuff!

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lxforrest
A DIY retro digital camera project - Blog #3 Prototype V -1
Replies
3
Views
374
lxforrest
lxforrest
Godfrey
Polaroid B&W - using b&w filters on SX-70 type cameras
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
Godfrey
Godfrey
dave lackey
Show your “Obsolete Camera” with photos made with it in the past few years!
Replies
19
Views
1K
AlwaysOnAuto
AlwaysOnAuto
F
Ernst Leitz yellow / orange / yellow-green filter compensations with Ilford FP4 and HP5
Replies
18
Views
1K
Rob-F
Rob-F
J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
1K
Jason Schneider
J
Back
Top Bottom