semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Somebody needs a hug!
Ranger Copy
One Stop Short
Carpe Diem
Carpe Diem
Too bad Polaroid didn't sell the technology with the equipment. I have never understood why a company hangs onto an intangible asset that no longer benefits the p&l. Even Kodak should sell the patent/tech for kodachrome. Create a company with the patent and all rights to the tech/name/branding and spin it off. I mean, what if Coca Cola stopped making Coke. The recipie locked away in the safe. No more Coke, No more Kodachrome, No more Instant Polaroid film, No more selenium cells. Hello! :bang:
Now listen up Rangers. I'm excited that some people have the fortitude to forge ahead against the odds. I hope we have an Impossible Project II, Impossible Project III and IV etc. And to show my support I'll buy the Impossible Product.
signed, all of me
:angel:
-
Carpe Diem
Too bad Polaroid didn't sell the technology with the equipment. I have never understood why a company hangs onto an intangible asset that no longer benefits the p&l. Even Kodak should sell the patent/tech for kodachrome. Create a company with the patent and all rights to the tech/name/branding and spin it off. I mean, what if Coca Cola stopped making Coke. The recipie locked away in the safe. No more Coke, No more Kodachrome, No more Instant Polaroid film, No more selenium cells. Hello! :bang:
Now listen up Rangers. I'm excited that some people have the fortitude to forge ahead against the odds. I hope we have an Impossible Project II, Impossible Project III and IV etc. And to show my support I'll buy the Impossible Product.
signed, all of me
:angel:
-
Den
Member
I really hope The Impossible Project will succeed in terms of reviving instant film photography. Just enough for them to have decent profit. But I'm also praying that they will not charge their customers with extravagant prices just like what the lomo society did or doing.
David Murphy
Veteran
My explanation (perhaps I am wrong): Too many overeducated business school grads running the show at these megacorporations. They lose the feel for their fundamental markets.Too bad Polaroid didn't sell the technology with the equipment. I have never understood why a company hangs onto an intangible asset that no longer benefits the p&l. Even Kodak should sell the patent/tech for kodachrome. Create a company with the patent and all rights to the tech/name/branding and spin it off. I mean, what if Coca Cola stopped making Coke. The recipie locked away in the safe. No more Coke, No more Kodachrome, No more Instant Polaroid film, No more selenium cells. Hello! :bang:
Now listen up Rangers. I'm excited that some people have the fortitude to forge ahead against the odds. I hope we have an Impossible Project II, Impossible Project III and IV etc. And to show my support I'll buy the Impossible Product.
signed, all of me
:angel:
-
Kristopher
Established
Polaroid revival IS good news.
Here we go again, Picket raging over analog photography...
I wonder why I opened this thread with the firm belief that he would, once again, spit in the soup.
Why are you insisting so much on acting like that EVERY time a good news happens in regards to analog photography.
Kodak is bringing Ektar in 4x5, you found it stupid, and tried to insinuate that the price would be prohibitive. Well, guess what, its on par with other 4x5 c-41 films.
Then, it is the Bessa III, you seem convinced, witout quoting any sources that it's a bad seller... And, worst, trying to convinces other people it actually IS a bad seller. Please provide sources.
Finally, it is Polaroid. I agree, the film seems to be quite different then it used to be, but some people want to give it a try. How dare you the say they are suckers?
Leave film enthousiasts alone.
Here we go again, Picket raging over analog photography...
I wonder why I opened this thread with the firm belief that he would, once again, spit in the soup.
Why are you insisting so much on acting like that EVERY time a good news happens in regards to analog photography.
Kodak is bringing Ektar in 4x5, you found it stupid, and tried to insinuate that the price would be prohibitive. Well, guess what, its on par with other 4x5 c-41 films.
Then, it is the Bessa III, you seem convinced, witout quoting any sources that it's a bad seller... And, worst, trying to convinces other people it actually IS a bad seller. Please provide sources.
Finally, it is Polaroid. I agree, the film seems to be quite different then it used to be, but some people want to give it a try. How dare you the say they are suckers?
Leave film enthousiasts alone.
sig
Well-known
Sorry, I can not resist the temptation.
Maybe they are just keeping their technology in the company (both polaroid and kodak) for later when the world comes to their senses and dump all digital cameras and will start using film again.......
sig
Well-known
I think he said that the new instant film suck.... different from calling the ones who want to try it suckers.
dwaoka
emmigrant
did you see Ilford Harman logo on the back of the PX 600 pack? hm..
Last edited:
imokruok
Well-known
If I were them, I'd take their logo off of the stuff until the quality improves.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
If this is the best they can do with B&W, what is the color going to look like?
Kristopher
Established
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Folks will buy just about anything to be "different."
Brian Puccio
Well-known
I thought that's what they said about folks who use rangefinders instead of SLRs.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
In a few months there will be 100,000 dark, brown, barely recognizable PX-100 photos of wives, lovers and wilted flowers posted on flickr, and this will have run its course.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I hope they work the bugs out of their process. But it's obvious from the outset that there was some sophisticated, and under-appreciated, engineering put into the original Polaroid formulations, for instance they being relatively independant of ambient temperature and fogging effects during the post-exposure development phase. Not to mention all the sophistication of the color emulsion's many layers.
As one who works within a high-technology manufacturing environment, I find it interesting that so-called "older" technologies are not as easy to replicate as the marketing hyperbole would otherwise indicate. This phenomenon has far-reaching implications, and is observed elsewhere; for instance, ancient culture's technology is still little-understood, the great pyramids in Egypt being one obvious example; but there are more recent technical examples where reverse-engineering another group's work doesn't always reveal the subtle sophistication of the original process. As an analogy, you can slice a cake apart, analyzing each crumb, but your detailed analysis may not reveal for you the subtle necessities of mixing the eggs into the cream at a specific temperature, then letting them sit for so many minutes; or sifting the flour just so.
I suspect that many of these obsoleted processes possess a complexity that renders them as one-way mathematical functions, thus they don't reveal to an end-observer all that is necessary for their replication. The Impossible Project has the advantage of some "insider information," from many of their members having been former Polaroid employees, but for various possible reasons - intellectual property concerns, environmental regulation, or perhaps mere cost-savings - the product they have produced does not appear to possess the same attributes as the legacy Polaroid material.
We will have to wait and see if they refine their process down the road, and release a 2nd generation product, possibly under a different product identifier.
BTW, I've noticed this about many of the eastern-European film and paper products sold by Freestyle, they'll periodically market them with slightly different product nomenclature, which reveals to me that, since the manufacture of film and paper is a batch-process, they appear to sell everything that gets ran through the line, regardless of its adherance to some standard of quality control. Just change the name on the box if the fog level or sensitivity or spectral response or contrast doesn't match the previous batch; call it something else, but sell it nonetheless. I don't think these small firms can afford to do otherwise.
This is in contrast to the "first tier" manufacturers, whose production consistency has to be higher, since they have a large customer base who rely on these products for their consistent properties.
~Joe
As one who works within a high-technology manufacturing environment, I find it interesting that so-called "older" technologies are not as easy to replicate as the marketing hyperbole would otherwise indicate. This phenomenon has far-reaching implications, and is observed elsewhere; for instance, ancient culture's technology is still little-understood, the great pyramids in Egypt being one obvious example; but there are more recent technical examples where reverse-engineering another group's work doesn't always reveal the subtle sophistication of the original process. As an analogy, you can slice a cake apart, analyzing each crumb, but your detailed analysis may not reveal for you the subtle necessities of mixing the eggs into the cream at a specific temperature, then letting them sit for so many minutes; or sifting the flour just so.
I suspect that many of these obsoleted processes possess a complexity that renders them as one-way mathematical functions, thus they don't reveal to an end-observer all that is necessary for their replication. The Impossible Project has the advantage of some "insider information," from many of their members having been former Polaroid employees, but for various possible reasons - intellectual property concerns, environmental regulation, or perhaps mere cost-savings - the product they have produced does not appear to possess the same attributes as the legacy Polaroid material.
We will have to wait and see if they refine their process down the road, and release a 2nd generation product, possibly under a different product identifier.
BTW, I've noticed this about many of the eastern-European film and paper products sold by Freestyle, they'll periodically market them with slightly different product nomenclature, which reveals to me that, since the manufacture of film and paper is a batch-process, they appear to sell everything that gets ran through the line, regardless of its adherance to some standard of quality control. Just change the name on the box if the fog level or sensitivity or spectral response or contrast doesn't match the previous batch; call it something else, but sell it nonetheless. I don't think these small firms can afford to do otherwise.
This is in contrast to the "first tier" manufacturers, whose production consistency has to be higher, since they have a large customer base who rely on these products for their consistent properties.
~Joe
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Somebody still needs a hug.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
To be fair, the presenter in the video on the Impossible Project web site says that they are uninterested in consistency or accurate ISO, etc...that the idea is that the result with every photo will be different. Now, that could be spin, trying to make lemon aid out of lemons; but, that's what the man said.
If indeed, the original intent was to make the product he described, perhaps they had marketing research that indicates the approach they took is valid.
If indeed, the original intent was to make the product he described, perhaps they had marketing research that indicates the approach they took is valid.
slm
Formerly nextreme
I guess there's no chance they will make a compatible package the Kodak Instant film camera family (specifically, the Kodak EK6 - I got one for free). It would be interesting, given the history of that camera. In fact, I don't see any reason why they couldn't, as this is not Polaroid, but a completely different entity, and it would only make the product more attractive to a wider user base.
Kristopher
Established
Don't buy it, and leave people alone. Nobody forces you to check the results on flickr.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Well, Kristopher, I just said I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. It appears from the video that the product they created is exactly what they set out to create. In that sense, then, they succeeded. I had thought they were trying to make a product much like the Polaroid product. But apparently they were not.