First Impressions of Silver Shade SX-70 Polaroid Film - Impossible Project

[Akki14]

Have you even shot the film?

That's the problem with 90% of the people complaining on this thread. Their puffed up chests and posturing say... oh it's not good enough for me.

But look at all the other alternative processes people do out there. Look at all the different specialist films! Let's complain about ortho litho film, it's slow and its tonal range is horribly restricted! Pan50 is soo slow, I can't take pictures of my friends at night with it! Alternative hand-coated processes are so grainy due to the paper swelling and drying and the texture of the paper! and, dear lord, if I see another Lonely Tree In A Field or On A Hill shot, I'll hurt myself :rolleyes:

You know what? I can perfectly describe the film. Instant lith printing. An absolutely pain in the butt, perfectionist process that still results in not-quite-100%-predictable results which a few have been able to tame into beautiful photographs.

And yes they were starting from scratch, so there will be problems to work out. Newbies to emulsion making don't pour perfect plates or make perfect film the first time around either (or within the first few tries, they've not quite had a full year to sort out the full R&D and machinery). And yes, the cynic in me thinks this is the perfect way to raise capital but then that can only be a good thing as they'll now have something to improve upon.

 

[Q.G.]

That's the problem with 90% of the people complaining on this thread. Their puffed up chests and posturing say... oh it's not good enough for me.

And you and your sample images are to blame.

But look at all the other alternative processes people do out there. Look at all the different specialist films! [...]

We could. But doesn't that force the conclusion upon us that the IP did an exceptionally bad job managing expectations?
I never heard them say they were going to create a new "alternative process". Instead, they said they were going to recreate Polaroid.

 

[Q.G.]

They haven't delivered? They are still working on [...]

There you go: they set a date, and haven't delivered.
Yet? Who knows?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Instead, they said they were going to recreate Polaroid.

That is, unfortunately, a demonstrably incorrect assertion. And perhaps part of the reason for your unhappiness with Impossible's initial offering?

From their Mission Statement:

"The Impossible mission is NOT to re-build Polaroid Integral film but (with the help of strategic partners) to develop a new product with new characteristics, consisting of new optimised components, produced with a streamlined modern setup. An innovative and fresh analog material, sold under a new brand name that perfectly will match the global re-positioning of Integral Films."

(Upper case emphasis is part of the original statement.)

Ken

 

[railwayman3]

That is, unfortunately, a demonstrably incorrect assertion. And perhaps part of the reason for your unhappiness with Impossible's initial offering?

From their Mission Statement:

"The Impossible mission is NOT to re-build Polaroid Integral film but (with the help of strategic partners) to develop a new product with new characteristics, consisting of new optimised components, produced with a streamlined modern setup. An innovative and fresh analog material, sold under a new brand name that perfectly will match the global re-positioning of Integral Films."

Ken

That was a part I, also, hadn't read (my omission, but I've not previously had any
particular interest in using Polaroid).

I guess anyone expecting a replica or replacement film just to resurrect their old "instant snapshot" cameras from the attic is likely to be disappointed, but I can see now that, as Akki infers above, that this may hopefully progress successfully as a new "alternative process" of interest mainly to enthusiasts.

 

[AgX]

Not aiming at recreating Polaroid does not neccessarily mean technical inferiority. Yes, I admit it is hard in this case to establish the scale to measure technical grade.

But, they stated to "change the world of photography" with their new film. And this CAN be discussed.

 

[gatewaycityca]

I do have to cut Impossible Project some slack about one thing...they have said from the very beginning that the film would NOT be the same as Polaroid films. They said it would be different. They said they would make films that were compatible with SX-70 and Polaroid 600 but it wouldn't be the same.

I really do want to give them a chance and I want to try the film. When they come out with a 600 film, I definitely will buy a couple of cartridges just out of curiosity. It's just that I'm having doubts, and I have to be honest that it seems like it's just too expensive. Especially considering how finicky everyone is saying the film is. I mean really, if you only get 8 pictures per cartridge, with a film that is very finicky and inconsistent, and each cartridge costs over $20 each...I just don't know what to think about that.

I also can't really say I like IP's marketing scheme. No offense to anyone here, but one of my pet peeves is how they feel like they have to insert the catchy hipster "analog" term every chance they get...as in how they have "analog instant film" all over their website. What, as opposed to "digital film" ?? And really, since when do we have to call film "analog", anyway? What's wrong with just saying FILM?

I mean, like I said...Fuji still makes great instant peel-apart film and you sure don't see them plastering "analog instant film" all over their products.

I'm just saying.

 

[Akki14]

I think it has changed the world of instant photography. This is a totally different product. And obviously it's pissing off quite a bit of people and any publicity is good publicity. And quite frankly it mostly seems to piss off those who would never and have never shot polaroid anyway, so what's the problem? It's like going into a minox forum and bitching about massively huge grain on huge enlargements. Why don't you all shoot large format, huh?

For the record, my keeper rate out of a pack of 8 is 6-7 shots, usually one or two is down to slight exposure adjustments, nothing else.

Appropriately for the "analog film" rant, I see below my reply box an APUG advert for some place saying... JustFilm. All Analog ... All The Time. Are they hipsters then? Maybe we should go ask them.

 

[kraker]

I think it has changed the world of instant photography. (...)

Very well said, Heather. All of it.

I still have some 6(?) packs of Polaroid 600 left, and there, the world of instant photography is also changing. Time and temperature have their influence, and it's always a surprise to see how the colours turn out in the next pack.

I really appreciate what Impossible is doing, and it's great to see this happening. I'm sure they're still making changes to the products, and I think it is just great that we can give them a try already. We don't have to wait until it's all 100% (and even then, when is it 100%? If it is exactly the same as the Polaroid product? Now, THAT is boring!) This is the perfect time to experiment.

When their 600 film comes out, I'll be sure to buy a few packs, even if I still have Polaroid 600 in stock.

 

[Photo Engineer]

It still reminds me of the old child's tale "The Emperors New Clothes"!

PE

 

[sperera]

I received 5 packs the other day....still waiting for my SX-70 i bought from USA for $4

 

[Q.G.]

It still reminds me of the old child's tale "The Emperors New Clothes"!

Me too.

Granted, saying that hey were going to recreate Polaroid film was not entirely correct.
What they had promised was to make instant film that would fit Polaroid cameras, using the old Polaroid production facilities, trying to reconstruct the old Polaroid know-how to do so.

Change the world of instant photography they have not.
It was quite possible to mess up the original Polaroid and produce results not unsimilar (but though still expensive, a bit cheaper).

And that, Heather, i know because i have.
Why do you assume that people not impressed with what the IP has come up with so far have never used Polaroid and never will? That's demonstrably wrong (i present myself in evidence: so i'll change my 'alias' to "Exhibit A" ).

 

[holmburgers]

I think some people here need to recognize the "revolutionary power" of what the IP has done.

Now I agree, right now, the film itself isn't revolutionary. But the marketing, the branding, the BUZZ has been remarkable. And that's what we need!

In this new age, analog photography has to set itself apart, it has to make a POINT of being analog, being different. I'm sure it's mildly disgusting for a lot of the older folks here (like over 30... sorry for saying "old folks") who vividly remember the days when film was king, to hear all this talk about "analog film", as if it's such a departure. It might seem slightly cheapened, eh?

But I'm afraid it's gonna be this way, and we can benefit, tangentially, from these "marketing segments". The Lomos, the hipsters, the Urban Outfitters crowd. Basically people who LIKE the look of film. Let them be the target market, and we'll reap the benefits of fresh, analog stock.

Lastly, if you haven't purchased the film, and you're complaining about the look, well I would charge you to go buy some. Maybe YOU can make use of it, maybe YOU can do something good with it. Quit your bitching, and support this project that is setting a precedent for how to make analog photography continue growing, continue innovating and continue infecting people with the incurable disease that can be.... ANALOG PHOTOGRAPHY!

*soap box down*

 

[Photo Engineer]

Let us take a hypothetical case. Kodak shuts down and a group of ex-Kodak employees are given the keys to Kodak Park (Now renamed Eastman Industrial Park) with all of the formulas, most of the equipment and most of the chemicals.

I can assure you that that group would do a credible job of restarting the factory and producing some excellent product within a year given the capital to restart. So, we know that the Impossible Project people are working under a similar scenario. But, their first offering is not quite up to snuff!

Now, Heather makes a point of comparison with alternative processes, but I would say that anyone making a lith print that looked like one of the samples here would reject it and try again. I have seen many lith prints here that far surpass anything seen in this thread.

Now, as to my use of instant products; when I joined the instant film project at EK, I was given an SX-70 and a few boxes of instant film and was told to get familiar with instant and develop impressions. I was then given a stack of PR-10 film and a Kodak camera (not yet released, so I had to have a special "do not search" card to carry with my briefcase so that the guards would let me pass when I came and went out of Kodak Park). I was told to do the same with PR-10 and then to compare the two products and develop impressions on the comparison. I still have stacks of both types of prints. So, I have used a lot of integral and peel apart.

BTW, I have Polaroid backs for my 4x5, RZ and Bronicas so I have used it there as well, and we used it as proofs back at the cape. I have a few negatives from way back then as well.

So, I am no stranger to instant in all of its incarnations.

PE

 

[gatewaycityca]

holmburgers...here's a funny little thing though. "Analog" isn't even a correct term though. You can have an analog meter, an analog watch, an analog signal...but "analog film"?? That makes no sense. Film is film. No need to make up some new fad term for something that has existed for over 100 years.

Age has nothing to do with it either. I've gotten some of my friends into film photography and NONE of them call it "analog." They don't say stuff like "oh you shoot analog." They just call it film. In fact, I had just gotten one of my friends interested interested in darkroom developing too. I have a darkroom set up in my garage to develop B&W prints, and after I showed him how I develop prints, he was just starting to get into it. He was only 19. (He is no longer in this world...God bless him).

My whole point is there are a LOT of people who are into film photography. It's not just hipsters and lomographers. I buy film all the time and I use 99.99 percent film for all my pictures. I probably shoot more film in one week than a lomography hipster uses in an entire year. Somehow it seems ridiculous that people think they're the "saviours" of film.

And if anyone has any doubts about it, here's my Flickr stream...almost entirely film. Including some pictures I've taken with Polaroid 600 and Fuji instant film. (I really like the Fuji B&W instant film, BTW.)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/silverscape/

Aren't we all doing our part to use and promote film? I know I'm doing my part. As I type this, I have a bunch of 35mm and 120 B&W rolls I need to develop, and I have several rolls of color Kodak film I'm going to take to the lab tomorrow to get developed. I love film and I'm doing my part to promote it as much as I can. And I have never set foot in Urban Outfitters. I don't use film to be cool or trendy...I use film because I love using it.

Anyway...to get back on topic, my doubts about the new film from Impossible Project are because of the examples I've seen, and the reviews I've read from people who HAVE used it. They say it's extremely inconsistent. Also, when IP said they were making a black and white film, I expected to see a film that would produce true black and white pictures. I'm not saying that sepia look doesn't have its charm, I'm just saying I'm kind of disappointed. And for the record, I also said I AM going to try it. If I like it, I'll buy more cartridges. If it ends up being as inconsistent and fickle as a lot of people are saying, then I'll have to wait until IP makes improvements to it and in the mean time I'll be happy using Fuji peel-apart film.

 

[Q.G.]

Well put.
I too hate the "analog" thingy (but daren't say so on the Apug ).

You can't have an analog meter, an analog watch, analog signal either.
It's all part of the digitalk. So calling the Apug "Apug" is paying reverence to the digiworld...

Unless, of course, i missed what this Photography Users Group is analogous to.
(And do we "Use" photography? Hmm... I guess we do, yes.)

 

[AgX]

I'm going to split hairs, but there is film (silver image film) which has got only binary information as image. This information storage is called "bit-to-film". In this context one may speak of `analog film´ when referring to the classic image storage on film.

 

[Q.G.]

But isn't digital then the thing that is analogous to that either-or film?

 

[sepiareverb]

Well I just bought four more packs, despite having only 4 successes with my first two packs. It is a finicky film, but when one nails it it is quite beautiful. As to the complaints: if it isn't the film for you don't use it, and what is gained by badmouthing it to those who do like it?

I was under the impression that IP got the machines but not the formulas?

 

[Tim Gray]

They had to source a new film for it. That much we know.

 

[Ektagraphic]

After speaking with ImPossible again today, they have said that the 600 is coming very soon and that the PX-100 First Flush is no longer manufactured and will be replaced by a reformulated PX-100 that is easier to work with as soon as the current stock sells out.

 

[gatewaycityca]

hmm....sepiareverb, you're a lot more forgiving than me. Only 4 good pictures out of 16? That would just get me so frustrated. Especially since you don't have any manual control over the exposure. From what I'm reading, it seems like it's just pure luck whether the pictures turn out.

I do want to try the film...some of the pictures I've seen look pretty cool, almost like Van Dyke prints. But I just hope the film isn't as finicky and unstable as people have been saying. I understand the film is still new and experimental...if half of my pictures turn out, then I would be happy with that. But 1/4th...not so much. Not for $21 a cartridge and only 8 shots.

EDIT:

Ok, Patrick I just saw your post. That sounds good. Apparently, a lot of people have been saying the same things and Impossible Project is hearing them.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Do you have an SX-70 Chris?

 

[Ektagraphic]

Since their website says that the PX-100 is at a special "Introductory Price" I asked what it will change to and it will only go up $1 USD when the Introductory price is over...

 

[Q.G.]

As to the complaints: if it isn't the film for you don't use it, and what is gained by badmouthing it to those who do like it?

The same as praising it to those who don't like it.

Is it not allowed, in a thread devoted to "the first impressions" we have of something, to say anything else than how great that something would be?