The I DON'T LIKE POLAROID PRINTS appreciation thread

[AusDLK]

LOL! That looks like an interesting camera, but I doubt it'll make me "hitch my Polaroid wagon at the door" any time in the foreseeable future. 🙂

I might get one anyway as I do keep Instax Wide in stock, and I find my only IW camera at present is a bit more bulky and slower to use than I prefer.
----
Ah, did some reading on the Fuji Instax EVO Wide. It's basically a micro-sensor digital camera married to a WiFi enabled digital printer that prints to Instax Wide film ... Not really an instant film camera in the traditional sense at all. Still looks like an interesting device, but it's important to know what it is, not what it looks like.

G

i sold all my Polaroid SX-70 stuff when i bought this camera. i grew VERY tired of throwing away at least half of the Polaroid pictures i took because of exposure problems. i could almost never get a decent flash exposure from a variety of different cameras. in almost all pictures with people the skintones were blown. and not for the lack of experimentation but MANY MANY film packs later my results still were unpredictable in the field. SX-70 cameras are very romantic and vintage fun, the EVO not so much. but now, there will be ZERO photo waste, no more $2 prints tossed. with the EVO results are 100% predictable with none of the SX-70 bugaboos.... no film shield required and development fast enough that you don't forget what you just took a picture of.

 

[Godfrey]

i sold all my Polaroid SX-70 stuff when i bought this camera. i grew VERY tired of throwing away at least half of the Polaroid pictures i took because of exposure problems. i could almost never get a decent flash exposure from a variety of different cameras. in almost all pictures with people the skintones were blown. and not for the lack of experimentation but MANY MANY film packs later my results still were unpredictable in the field. SX-70 cameras are very romantic and vintage fun, the EVO not so much. but now, there will be ZERO photo waste, no more $2 prints tossed. with the EVO results are 100% predictable with none of the SX-70 bugaboos.... no film shield required and development fast enough that you don't forget what you just took a picture of.

Sorry to hear you have had so much trouble. It sounds like your SX-70 cameras (all of which are very old nowadays) needed to be serviced as they are often way off on metering calibration and shutter operation at this great age.

I have four SX-70 and derivative cameras. One is an original 1973 SX-70 that belonged to my uncle, given to me about 12 years ago. It's never been serviced, just always taken care of and stored carefully when not used. The others are MiNT derivatives (SLR670m, SLR670a, SLR670x) that I purchased over the past decade: all were completely dismantled, serviced, assembled and calibrated to spec. All four make excellent exposure quality on current Polaroid SX-70 and 600 type films, per their specific use. I use flash only rarely, but when I do I use the MiNT electronic flash for the SX-70 type cameras, which has settings for both 600 and SX-70 film packs; it does a great job. When I have wastage, it's because of my errors in focus or when I set the darken/lighten adjustments improperly for the scene, nothing to do with the cameras' operations. Or just because it wasn't a particularly good photo I framed. I typically get about 6 to 7 true Keepers out of every pack of film, which is a pretty good track record.

So I'm not dumping them for a mini digital camera affixed to a printer... But I might get one of the EVOs just because it's an interesting camera concept. The Wide EVO is kinda pricey, however, for what it is. The same thing in the Instax Mini format (Instax Mini EVO) is about half the price. I might try one of those.

Again, these Fuji EVOs are interesting camera concepts, but they're not actually instant print cameras at all. They're simply devices that print to Instax instant print media ... A different thing. As long as you're happy with what your camera does, life is great.

Don't let your bad experiences make you rave at other people's good times/good experiences.

G

Overhead Canopy - Santa Clara 2025
Polaroid SLR670a by MiNT, 600 Color​

 

[AusDLK]

Sorry to hear you have had so much trouble. It sounds like your SX-70 cameras (all of which are very old nowadays) needed to be serviced as they are often way off on metering calibration and shutter operation at this great age.

I have four SX-70 and derivative cameras. One is an original 1973 SX-70 that belonged to my uncle, given to me about 12 years ago. It's never been serviced, just always taken care of and stored carefully when not used. The others are MiNT derivatives (SLR670m, SLR670a, SLR670x) that I purchased over the past decade: all were completely dismantled, serviced, assembled and calibrated to spec. All four make excellent exposure quality on current Polaroid SX-70 and 600 type films, per their specific use. I use flash only rarely, but when I do I use the MiNT electronic flash for the SX-70 type cameras, which has settings for both 600 and SX-70 film packs; it does a great job. When I have wastage, it's because of my errors in focus or when I set the darken/lighten adjustments improperly for the scene, nothing to do with the cameras' operations. Or just because it wasn't a particularly good photo I framed. I typically get about 6 to 7 true Keepers out of every pack of film, which is a pretty good track record.

So I'm not dumping them for a mini digital camera affixed to a printer... But I might get one of the EVOs just because it's an interesting camera concept. The Wide EVO is kinda pricey, however, for what it is. The same thing in the Instax Mini format (Instax Mini EVO) is about half the price. I might try one of those.

Again, these Fuji EVOs are interesting camera concepts, but they're not actually instant print cameras at all. They're simply devices that print to Instax instant print media ... A different thing. As long as you're happy with what your camera does, life is great.

Don't let your bad experiences make you rave at other people's good times/good experiences.

G

Overhead Canopy - Santa Clara 2025
Polaroid SLR670a by MiNT, 600 Color​

i appreciate your comments although i completely disagree with your definition of an "instant camera." the Evo hands me a photo instantly -- why should I (or anyone) care about what the internal mechanism is?

you may not know that i am the inventor of PolaPack, an iType battery power source for SX-70 cameras, that was sold until recently by Retrospekt under a slightly different name. so i am extremely knowledgable about the camera in all its forms. along the way and among the countless cameras i've used, i splurged for a MiNT model (the one with a much better iType battery solution than the one i created) that had to be sent back and finally refunded because of inconsistent flash exposures. they claimed that it was functioning properly -- but don't tell that to all of the $2 pictures that i still had to throw away. even with an i2, my results didn't compare to the zero throw-away experience that i've had with the Evo.

i wish that this hadn't been my experience. maybe i am too picky. i love the SX-70 but if the goal is to reliably take photos and have confidence in the results, it is not the camera for me -- confidence is the operative word. and sadly the Impossible folks have yet to solve the 15 minute development time (compared to 2 minutes for Instax) so that had always taken some of the fun out taking and sharing SX-70 pictures.

 

[Godfrey]

Peace.

For some people, the mechanism of how a camera produces an image is just as important as the image, on a different plane of appreciation. If I want to use a digital camera and make a print from its captures, I don't need to buy an integrated device to do that; in that, the EVO cameras are a convenience mostly. Part of the entertainment of instant film (and film in general...), for me anyway, is not the absolute consistency of the output but rather the variability and lack of absolute consistency, which I can get today with any digital camera. With a digital camera, there's no peering into the future to imagine what might have been captured: you press the button and look at the screen, it's explicit. Film photography has to do with trying to predict – amidst all the variability and randomness of media, exposure, and development – and coerce the medium into producing what you imagine from your initial view of a subject. With standard film cameras, that imagining stretches into however long it might be that you take to have the film processed, with "instant film" cameras, you have to wait a short time to see what you've done.

That's how I view it, and why I celebrate using instant film of all types. That's plus the notion that what has been captured and emerges from the process is The Final Result, good or bad, not that I can apply a dozen effects and adjustments to it. That's where a 'digital camera with an embedded photo printer' diverges entirely from an actual instant film camera, for me.

And remember: I have no issues with this entertaining technology in and of itself. It definitely opens up options and such that one can take advantage of. But it's not what I enjoy as Instant Film photography, not by a long shot. It does not replace in any way my SX-70 and said derivatives; it complements them with a new and different technology, and it incites a different way of thinking about Photography and photographic art, much as digital capture has as well.

G

Impossible I-1 camera, 600 Color v2 by Impossible​

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

A couple years ago, I did a project where I shot pretty much everything on Polaroid for a year. I used an SX-70 folding camera that had been overhauled by Retrospekt and converted to use 600 film. I had a lot of fun, but spent a fortune on film.

Shooting at the Three Rivers Festival in Fort Wayne at night with the Polaroid was fun, I got a lot of surprisingly good shots there!

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Some more. You can see my whole year of Polaroid at The SX-70 Project.

 

[Godfrey]

Outstanding stuff, Chris! You inspire ...
I have thousands of Polaroid photos made over the past decade plus. I should ferret out the projects hidden in those boxes. 😉

G

 

[AusDLK]

Some more. You can see my whole year of Polaroid at The SX-70 Project.

some really, really nice photos there, to be sure. but for these kind of pictures, personally i would not use an instant camera.

my issue with the SX-70 boils down to, not the expense of the film per se, but the expense of wasted film because the camera+flash simply do not reliably create photos that i care to keep or share through no fault of my own. non-flash photos, such as yours, are different and far less variable in my experience. i choose to almost exlusively want to take indoor pictures of people with a flash with whatever instant camera i may have. for me, these suck more often then they don't.

 

[AusDLK]

Peace.

For some people, the mechanism of how a camera produces an image is just as important as the image, on a different plane of appreciation. If I want to use a digital camera and make a print from its captures, I don't need to buy an integrated device to do that; in that, the EVO cameras are a convenience mostly. Part of the entertainment of instant film (and film in general...), for me anyway, is not the absolute consistency of the output but rather the variability and lack of absolute consistency, which I can get today with any digital camera. With a digital camera, there's no peering into the future to imagine what might have been captured: you press the button and look at the screen, it's explicit. Film photography has to do with trying to predict – amidst all the variability and randomness of media, exposure, and development – and coerce the medium into producing what you imagine from your initial view of a subject. With standard film cameras, that imagining stretches into however long it might be that you take to have the film processed, with "instant film" cameras, you have to wait a short time to see what you've done.

That's how I view it, and why I celebrate using instant film of all types. That's plus the notion that what has been captured and emerges from the process is The Final Result, good or bad, not that I can apply a dozen effects and adjustments to it. That's where a 'digital camera with an embedded photo printer' diverges entirely from an actual instant film camera, for me.

And remember: I have no issues with this entertaining technology in and of itself. It definitely opens up options and such that one can take advantage of. But it's not what I enjoy as Instant Film photography, not by a long shot. It does not replace in any way my SX-70 and said derivatives; it complements them with a new and different technology, and it incites a different way of thinking about Photography and photographic art, much as digital capture has as well.

G

Impossible I-1 camera, 600 Color v2 by Impossible​

we must agree to disagree. for me, beyond the pure aesthetics and joy of using one camera over another (the reason i have more Leica M cameras, both film and digital, than one person should), the sole purpose of a camera is to create photos. film or digital or hybrid (as with the Evo) makes no difference to me. in the end, i share photos, not how they were made.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

some really, really nice photos there, to be sure. but for these kind of pictures, personally i would not use an instant camera.

my issue with the SX-70 boils down to, not the expense of the film per se, but the expense of wasted film because the camera+flash simply do not reliably create photos that i care to keep or share through no fault of my own. non-flash photos, such as yours, are different and far less variable in my experience. i choose to almost exlusively want to take indoor pictures of people with a flash with whatever instant camera i may have. for me, these suck more often then they don't.

It was an experiment, to see if the kind of documentary work I do could be done with a medium like Polaroid. I was happy with the results, but it did cost a lot of money. A wealthy patron financed the project; I could not have done it with my own money. It was fun to try something different!

 

[AusDLK]

It was an experiment, to see if the kind of documentary work I do could be done with a medium like Polaroid. I was happy with the results, but it did cost a lot of money. A wealthy patron financed the project; I could not have done it with my own money. It was fun to try something different!

looks like a success to me. i'm impressed.

 

[Godfrey]

we must agree to disagree. for me, beyond the pure aesthetics and joy of using one camera over another (the reason i have more Leica M cameras, both film and digital, than one person should), the sole purpose of a camera is to create photos. film or digital or hybrid (as with the Evo) makes no difference to me. in the end, i share photos, not how they were made.

That's fine for you.

However, this thread is about instant film photographs, not about hybrid digital capture to instant film printer photographs. There is a difference.

So in the context of this thread, the shared photos and discussion should cycle about actual instant film work, not hybrid digital capture/instant printer images.

G

Portrait - Santa Clara 2023
Polaroid SLR670a + Polaroid 600 Color Round Frame, MiNT SX-70 flash unit​

 

[robert blu]

Interesting discussion.
I have three SX-70 which in my opinion is a camera which represent a masterpiece in engeenering, specially considering the "era" in which they were buit.
Unfortunately, now none of mine works, for different reasons. One has a stuck mirror (I tried the different operations suggested to bring it back to the correct posiiton as I did in the past but now no success).
Another has some elctric issue, last time I tested it expelled 8 photos at a rhythm of one per second and I did. not manage to stop it 😱
The third seems to be completely dead but I'll keep it forever because a present from a close friend who is no more with us.
Nobody will repar then in the country where I live (Italy) and to ship them oversea is cost prohibitive.

I agree with G. that what is fascinating in istant photography is "the variability and lack of absolute consistency," but in the lately I was very disappointed by the new SX-70 films which I found to unreliable. Yes, the one or sometimes two good result from an 8 exposure pack are absolutely gorgeous but this becomes very expensive. In this meaning I understand the disappintment by D. due to the high cost of wasted film.

I also took out of the boxes a few old SX-70 and 600 Polaroid photos from 20 years ago to take part in RoidWeek spring 2025 and compared to the recent they are much much better, colour, definition, etc. And possibility to manipulate.

But...there always is a but...

I have seen many works done with Polaroid which are simply excellent and inspiring. Like the photos above by Chris. Super! Gas is behind the corner!

This post is long enough, more thoughts in the next one.

 

[luuca]

I have this hung at the wall...

 

[Sonnar Brian]

My problem with Polaroid Pictures is that I bring the camera to my Daughter's youth group get togethers and end up giving 90% of them away. I use a Polaroid SLR680 and SLR690 most of the time, and a SX-70 Sonar with Polaroid electronic flash and 1.5x Telephoto with 600 film. I have a very high success rate with the pictures.

 

[Godfrey]

My problem with Polaroid Pictures is that I bring the camera to my Daughter's youth group get togethers and end up giving 90% of them away. I use a Polaroid SLR680 and SLR690 most of the time, and a SX-70 Sonar with Polaroid electronic flash and 1.5x Telephoto with 600 film. I have a very high success rate with the pictures.

I know that problem! I often end up shooting two or three of nearly the same photo to cover the folks at the moment who want a print... Or I don't give any away at the time, but send everyone a set of them afterwards ... digitally scanned and printed to original size.
For most people who are not photographers, that's good enough. ;D

This is where things like the Fuji EVO Wide and other instant print devices are very handy.

G

 

[AusDLK]

That's fine for you.

However, this thread is about instant film photographs, not about hybrid digital capture to instant film printer photographs. There is a difference.

So in the context of this thread, the shared photos and discussion should cycle about actual instant film work, not hybrid digital capture/instant printer images.

G

Portrait - Santa Clara 2023
Polaroid SLR670a + Polaroid 600 Color Round Frame, MiNT SX-70 flash unit​

That's fine for you.

However, this thread is about instant film photographs, not about hybrid digital capture to instant film printer photographs. There is a difference.

So in the context of this thread, the shared photos and discussion should cycle about actual instant film work, not hybrid digital capture/instant printer images.

G

Portrait - Santa Clara 2023
Polaroid SLR670a + Polaroid 600 Color Round Frame, MiNT SX-70 flash unit​

Godfrey, you need to do your homework. Instax is totally a photographic process. the media in an Instax Evo camera is instant film, the same stuff that Fuji has been selling for years in dozens and dozens of different model instant cameras. the media is not paper like in a inkjet printer, it is film the same way SX-70 is film. they work differently -- Instax exposes through the back of the print (somehow) and SX-70 from the front (hence the need for all the mirrors.) while the Evo is a "printer" in the broad sense of the term. it prints with light exposing FILM, not with ink deposited on paper. and unless you never digitize your film images, which obviously you do, what the eff difference does it make where in the image making chain the digital imaging is performed? i thank you for dispensing with telling me where i should and should not be posting.

 

[AusDLK]

Interesting discussion.
I have three SX-70 which in my opinion is a camera which represent a masterpiece in engeenering, specially considering the "era" in which they were buit.
Unfortunately, now none of mine works, for different reasons. One has a stuck mirror (I tried the different operations suggested to bring it back to the correct posiiton as I did in the past but now no success).
Another has some elctric issue, last time I tested it expelled 8 photos at a rhythm of one per second and I did. not manage to stop it 😱
The third seems to be completely dead but I'll keep it forever because a present from a close friend who is no more with us.
Nobody will repar then in the country where I live (Italy) and to ship them oversea is cost prohibitive.

I agree with G. that what is fascinating in istant photography is "the variability and lack of absolute consistency," but in the lately I was very disappointed by the new SX-70 films which I found to unreliable. Yes, the one or sometimes two good result from an 8 exposure pack are absolutely gorgeous but this becomes very expensive. In this meaning I understand the disappintment by D. due to the high cost of wasted film.

I also took out of the boxes a few old SX-70 and 600 Polaroid photos from 20 years ago to take part in RoidWeek spring 2025 and compared to the recent they are much much better, colour, definition, etc. And possibility to manipulate.

But...there always is a but...

I have seen many works done with Polaroid which are simply excellent and inspiring. Like the photos above by Chris. Super! Gas is behind the corner!

This post is long enough, more thoughts in the next one.

View attachment 4864128

you echo my point about SX-70. there is so much to love about it but the inconsistency goes beyond the hyped imperfection that Polaroid uses a marketing ploy. people love SX-70 photography nevertheless and more power to them. i did for a long time. just not any more. the Evo is 2025 and that just so happens to be the year i find myself living in! 🙂

 

[MISH]

I used to shoot a lot of 4x5 Polaroid. Here are some family shots

 

[Godfrey]

Godfrey, you need to do your homework. Instax is totally a photographic process. the media in an Instax Evo camera is instant film, the same stuff that Fuji has been selling for years in dozens and dozens of different model instant cameras. the media is not paper like in a inkjet printer, it is film the same way SX-70 is film. they work differently -- Instax exposes through the back of the print (somehow) and SX-70 from the front (hence the need for all the mirrors.) while the Evo is a "printer" in the broad sense of the term. it prints with light exposing FILM, not with ink deposited on paper. and unless you never digitize your film images, which obviously you do, what the eff difference does it make where in the image making chain the digital imaging is performed? i thank you for dispensing with telling me where i should and should not be posting.

I don't take homework assignments. I do own three Instax technology devices (a LOMO Instant Square, a NONS InstaxSQ back for Hasselblad, and an Instax Magny 35 with Leica M film back for Instax SQ prints with my Leica M4-2 and M6 bodies...) and have used them quite a lot.

But I'm way ahead of you. I've been studying camera technology since the 1970s.

The Fuji Instax print architecture was one of two designs ('expose from the back' and 'expose from the front') that Polaroid patented in the process of creating integral film and the SX-70 camera in the 1960-1970s. Polaroid used the 'expose from the front' design to facilitate the already well along the way SX-70 SLR design. Kodak tried to steal the 'expose from the back' design patent, and got beaten for it to the tune of a $19 billion dollar judgement against them. When Fuji sensibly licensed Polaroid patents to create Polaroid compatible films and later Instax films, they chose to use the 'expose from the back design' for the Instax line as it meant a simpler light path and lower cost to manufacture the bodies. See "A Triumph of Genius" by Ronald K Fierstein, ©2015.

Most of the reason for "all the mirrors" (quoting you) in the SX-70 was because the SX-70 is a single lens reflex, that is, the image that you view through the viewfinder is formed with the same lens that it is formed with on film. It does not have an auxiliary viewfinder. If you don't understand this, take a look at the Polaroid SX-70 promotional video on YouTube:

The Instax Wide EVO is a digital camera combined with an Instax Wide printer. This from

instax WIDE EVO™ | FUJIFILM

Welcome to the special website for the instax WIDE Evo™ hybrid instant camera. A camera that features a wide-angle lens to help you capture more of the action. This hybrid instant camera is packed with functions, like film and lens effects, film styles and more, which you can combine to make any...

instax.com

—
Our first WIDE format hybrid camera

Both Hybrid Instant Camera and Smartphone Printer in a single device.
Simply choose a photo stored on your camera and print it! You can even print instax™ photos from your camera roll on your Smartphone!
—
How else could you transfer and print photos from the camera later, from your iPhone, or save photos and make multiple copies of them with various effects? Why else would you have a Micro-SD card in the camera, and built in storage memory?? The Instax EVO Wide does not have any viewfinder other than the LCD ... fed by the digital imaging system components.

Here's my assignment to you: Photograph the back of your Instax EVO Wide camera with the film pack load door open so that I can see the light path from lens to film. If there is no direct light path, then it is NOT an instant print camera in the same sense that a Polaroid SX-70 (or any other Polaroid instant camera) is. It is a new type of hybrid camera, meaning it is the combination of a digital capture sensor and an Instax Wide printer.

G