Fuji/Polaroid peel-apart pack film vs. integral film

Do you think pack film is more appealing than integral film? If so, why?

Ten years ago I started with integral film (Spectra). It was convenient and always fun to watch the photo appear. Just recently I've begun using Fuji pack film and somehow find it more enjoyable. Part of the reason may be that I like the contrast of FP-3000B, part may be that I like having a negative, and part might be the amazement when peeling the film that there really is an image there. Yet, it's awkward to use in the field if you want to save the negative and also a bit messy to deal with.

Perhaps some of the appeal is that the user is just more involved in the process.

What say you?

I just started shooting with pack film (!) and I have to say that I really enjoy it. It's not just about the look (colours, contrast) of the prints, I think there's a bit of a nostalgia factor too. Not that I ever shot this film when I was young, nor do I remember anyone in my family shooting it (unlike integral film) -- however, many photos of my childhood must have been taken on one of these polaroids because my baby albums are full of these prints. There's also something about the physicality of the process - pulling the tabs, peeling apart the print, etc. it's unlike any other process. I'm just sorry I started shooting pack film so late.

I lived through the entire Polaroid integral film era and never paid much attention to any of those cameras and films until three years ago after The Impossible Project appeared on the scene. Needless to say, Impossible still has a long way to go before the Polaroid quality benchmark is reached. The B&W films are barely acceptable and gradually improving, but I've given up on Impossible color for now. Too slow and murky for my purposes. In any case, I usually scan and post-process my Impossible photos in order to extract as much contrast from the images as I can.

On the other hand, the Fuji packfilm has been a joy to work with. I've enjoyed the contrast and sensitivity of the 3000 B&W, especially with manual exposure cameras, and the 100 color is extremely reliable. The self-terminating nature of the Fuji development process allows me to wait for a convenient time & place to peel the negatives and save them in an orderly fashion for eventual cleaning and scanning. The expanded tonal scale of the FP3000 negs and the muted colors of the FP100 can be very attractive.

Now that the axe has fallen on packfilm, I look at my little array of Polaroid cameras and film backs with sorrow, knowing that they will be as useless as Kodak Instant cameras whenever the last of the Fuji film packs have made their way through the supply chain. So it is with mass-produced technologies... when the market gets too small, they disappear. Who knows which photo warhorse will be the next to fall?

Eventually, chemical photography may devolve right back to where it started in the nineteenth century, with home-made emulsions on glass plates or paper negatives. I've attended a few workshops to learn about doing that kind of thing, but in the meantime I'll enjoy making film photos as long as I can, instant or otherwise. Hopefully New55 will have some success and Impossible will work out their problems. There's always Instax...

mooseontheloose said:

... There's also something about the physicality of the process - pulling the tabs, peeling apart the print, etc. it's unlike any other process.

Click to expand...

Yes! Pulling the tabs and then the individual film is quite satisfying. I had my first tab rip off last week and had to go into a totally dark room to reposition them properly. The image was unaffected and looks great.

I'm just sorry I started shooting pack film so late.

Click to expand...

This seems to be a common sentiment.

Lee Rust said:

...The self-terminating nature of the Fuji development process allows me to wait for a convenient time & place to peel the negatives and save them in an orderly fashion for eventual cleaning and scanning...

Click to expand...

I rely on the self-terminating properties of FP film as well, though their datasheets warn of long term fading and other issues if development exceeds 8 minutes.

Eventually, chemical photography may devolve right back to where it started in the nineteenth century, with home-made emulsions on glass plates or paper negatives. I've attended a few workshops to learn about doing that kind of thing ...

Click to expand...

My thoughts as well.

I agree with Lee above - until recently there was no contest in terms of image quality between the Fuji materials and the Impossible Project. FP-100c and FP-3000b were films of amazing consistency and quality, Impossible not so much. Their new generation of black and white film looks pretty good though.

vdonovan said:

I agree with Lee above - until recently there was no contest in terms of image quality between the Fuji materials and the Impossible Project. FP-100c and FP-3000b were films of amazing consistency and quality, Impossible not so much. Their new generation of black and white film looks pretty good though.

Click to expand...

Impossible's 2.0 version is much better, but the B&W images I took last summer are already starting to go brown (and yes, they are kept in a dark place). I hope the next version will focus more on image stability (or at least make it one of the priorities).

I have not tried Fuji's peel apart but seen many examples and some of them do not have that "instant" feeling, ie. their characteristics are extraordinary. I have an SX70 and very occasionally shoot it. BW 2.0 is quite good and the Color I have seen examples that were very nice, but my experience with it is not so outstanding. Getting the best out of it also requires to work in their best envelope of temperature-development and shielding.

Instax I'm curious to try but it's a pity there is no more "serious" type of camera. Plus, it'd be too many systems. I like to use it all but have to select where to put the money... In that matter IP prices make it very selective and I'm at a moment where I prefer to shoot Medium Format E6 and C41.

I really like the pack film as I can shoot some at a car show to give car owners a print and still keep the negative part. I've recently cleared a bunch of them and can usually make a semi-decent darkroom print with them. It might be more opinion than fact, but I think the pack film is slightly higher quality than integral (even the older Polaroid stuff).
When I was still a forensic chemist at the lab, we used Polaroids for many things until each size went buh-bye. They held up very well, but I see better detail in the pack film shots.

I like how on pack film, you get a pure print - not in a "frame" - seeing a freshly peeled print and the look of "wow!" on someones face is amazing

mooseontheloose said:

Impossible's 2.0 version is much better, but the B&W images I took last summer are already starting to go brown (and yes, they are kept in a dark place). I hope the next version will focus more on image stability (or at least make it one of the priorities).

Click to expand...

Ooops, I forgot about the image stability factor. You are right, Impossible images have TERRRIBLE stability, and they probably will never be archival or anything like it.

This video came up in my YouTube feed:


Although I can't imagine peeling my film in the middle of a swimming pool! (2:37)

"Polaroid Swinger" - best camera commercial ever