Do you shoot Polaroids? What for?

[fschifano]

I have a Polaroid back for my Hasselblad that happily accepts the smaller sized Fuji instant films. I don't use it much at all. There was a time when I used it to check lighting ratios with studio lighting setups, but that's no longer necessary. Now I use, dare I say it here, a borrowed DSLR or Canon G11 for the job. Shows me exactly what I need to know, right now, and without outrageous film costs. The Canon G11 fits in my pocket, has complete manual overrides for everything, and is compatible with studio strobes. What's not to like?

I agree that using a 4x5 Polaroid back in a Crown or Speed Graphic can be a fun thing, but it is an expensive proposition unless you can sell the shots for a not inconsiderable price. There's a fellow here in NY who does just that, Lou Mendez; and rumor has it that he gets about $20 each. I've seen him out and about on the streets many times, and I'll always stop to say hello. He's a real class act this guy.

A NY Times article about the man from 1995 here:

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/01/nyregion/about-new-york-have-camera-will-travel.html

See pictures here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zippergooch/4883830125/#/

and here:

http://isnapny.com/2009/09/30/louis-mendez/

http://modomatic.posterous.com/meet-mr-mendes

 

[jamesgignac]

Honestly, I've only ever shot them for one reason: they're fun at parties. I know it's great to use for the people with the P-backs for their cameras but I just used a land camera, some old-stock, single-flash bulb things and would load up and leave it on a table at a bar or gathering for people to abuse as they will. It's always been fun and it's a great way for people to exchange numbers and stuff. Yes, the film is expensive and it's a bit absurd to use it in this way now but that's really the only time I've put Polaroid to use...at least in my adult life. As a child a Polaroid was the first camera I ever had of my own, before my father passed down his Minolta (can't recall the model) when I was about 8 or 9.

That's that.

 

[mhcfires]

I've got a polaroid back for my Speed, using the 3x4 pack film. I'm using Soft Scrub with bleach to clear the back of the negative. I tried it on a junk shot today, it works! I'll try again with a better shot tomorrow, post it when I get a chance.

 

[mhcfires]

I decided to scan this first effort, not much of a subject, my dog was snoozing in a doorway, I used the soft scrub gel and it seems to clear easily without the mess of liquid bleach all over the place. Be sure to wear gloves when doing this. I put the negative face down on some folded up newspaper, squirted it with about 5mL of gel, spread it with a gloved fingertip til it started clearing. I then took some folded up paper towels and blotted the excess gel before washing it gently under running water. Hung it up to dry. It is kind of surreal. Looks like it could use a bit more clearing or washing.

 

[Q.G.]

Good idea, nice result.
I think i'm going to dust off my Polaroid backs and order some Fuji film now.

 

[Vaughn]

"...my dog was snoozing in a doorway..."

I thought you had captured a rare hairy hippopotamus! Surreal, yes...

 

[mhcfires]

I thought you had captured a rare hairy hippopotamus! Surreal, yes...

Hairy Hippo?? My little Scottish Terror would consider that statement an insult!

 

[Q.G.]

To be fair, he does look like a hairy hippo.

But back to the process: does using jello bleach not require more of it, and make more of a mess than if you would submerge the negative in liquid bleach in a tray?

 

[mhcfires]

To be fair, he does look like a hairy hippo.

But back to the process: does using jello bleach not require more of it, and make more of a mess than if you would submerge the negative in liquid bleach in a tray?

The gel is better, you DON'T want to submerge the photo, if you get bleach on the emulsion you will ruin it. The popular method is to tape the negative emulsion side down to a glass plate and pour the bleach over the film and let it soften the black backing. The gel is nice, you can work over a folded newspaper and do the job without spilling bleach all over the place. I blot the gel and the softened backing off with paper towels, then rinse under water to wash the negative before hanging it up to dry. Probably wouldn't hurt to use some photo-flo, but I was too lazy to run that step.

 

[Ektagraphic]

To add to the magic of Polaroid, a teacher of mine was a chemist at Polaroid. It only adds to the magic now. Long live the instant!

 

[Q.G.]

The gel is better, you DON'T want to submerge the photo, if you get bleach on the emulsion you will ruin it. The popular method is to tape the negative emulsion side down to a glass plate and pour the bleach over the film and let it soften the black backing. The gel is nice, you can work over a folded newspaper and do the job without spilling bleach all over the place. I blot the gel and the softened backing off with paper towels, then rinse under water to wash the negative before hanging it up to dry. Probably wouldn't hurt to use some photo-flo, but I was too lazy to run that step.

Thanks for that!
Good thing i don't have some film yet. Else i would have found out in a rather more unpleasant way.

 

[mhcfires]

Thanks for that!
Good thing i don't have some film yet. Else i would have found out in a rather more unpleasant way.

Glad to help. This stuff isn't exactly cheap, don't want to ruin it all on the first try. Be sure to wear latex or vinyl gloves, the bleach is very hard on the skin.

 

[jp498]

Though someone compared the fuji fp100c45 with tmy2, they didn't add in the cost of developing and printing the tmy2. It's easily equal in cost. (And far cheaper to do the instant compared to purchasing commercial processing, which probably very few of us do)

I've mostly stuck to film for B&W and digital for color. There are two nice exceptions though. Lifepixel IR converted DSLR for infrared B&W, and Fuji instant 4x5 for color.

For the instant color, one technical advantage is to be able to easily verify the DOF in a shot. That's something you can't so easily see on a groundglass; sort of the transmitive versus reflective thing I think. Nothing beats a hard print.

Even if you have no good technical reason, people love it. If you photograph people, it's a little piece of magic. Normally with film, it's "good job, thanks, you'll see the pix in a couple weeks at double-u, double-u, double-u dot... or I'll send you a print after I get around to it." With instant, the 2 minutes or so "developing" are the slowest 2 minutes of someone's life, slower than holding your breath underwater. Peel it apart, and you've got a glistening beautiful color print that really is something special. The subject absolutely must have that photo to keep. It's the magic of film processing simplified and mixed with instant gratification; it cheapens digital.

Dead Link Removed

 

[BobCrowley]

I have so many reasons I like instant photos: In camera building, it is a great way to test for light leaks which is what I did yesterday on an 8x10 camera. For street photography, it's just more social, as Aaron says. I got my J-66 in the 60s and have been instantly imaging ever since. The appeal of a good image on paper has never left me. Having that available at the time of exposure is magic. On any Speed Graphic, my primary camera, a first exposure with FP-100B45 as a test has sometimes been the only exposure I needed. I found out right away. Instant film is easy to experiment with and provides a lot of artistic possibilities, and I can leave my computer off. It's a thrill to see the image.

Electronically mediated instant imaging on paper will eventually be perfected, and I will use that. Zink doesn't make it, yet, but in the future it might. The ability to expose on a surface, and have that surface be the image, still cannot be beat.