I want to shoot Instant Film

RattyMouse · May 25, 2016

I'm really feeling the instant film bug. I think that's my next move with my photographic hobby. The problem is, I cannot figure out the best entry point.

I have a couple of Instax mini cameras that my kids shoot. I steal it on occasion and shoot a bunch of sheets (8 yesterday). Very nice images, but small. If I stayed with that, I could get the Neo 90 camera, which is about the best instant camera you can buy. Not perfect, but top of the line for the mini film.

Or, I could get that Fuji Instax printer, and print images from my iPhone. The really cool part about that is I could send monochrome images to the printer. That would make it the ONLY way to get black and white instant film using Instax. I like the quality of the Instax mini cameras, but I dont know if this printer is equal to that.

Or, I could go Instax wide. The available cameras from Fujifilm are distinctly toy-ish, which is a downer. I could search and find an old 500 AF for $300 or so. That would be the top of the line Instax wide, or go with the new Lomo wide. That's a bit cheaper than the 500AF.

Or, I could go Impossible. I love the idea of shooting an SX-70, but the ISO of the available film is something like 150?? That's really slow, unlike the Instax film. Plus, the cost of Impossible film is really really really really really high. I do LOVE the square format though. And you get black and white. If only the film werent priced stupid high.

I just can't make up my mind...................

darkosaric · May 25, 2016

I have Polaroid SLR 680 and it is a great camera - impossible has film with ISO 600. Impossible is expensive - but only option for B&W instant 100% analog prints.
If you want color only - then instax wide is the best option - cheaper and you have many cameras available in lomography shop (if you don't like original Fuji camera).

*EDIT: about prices of impossible films (20€ pro pack): if you have some nice dinner in Saturday evening with your partner - easily you will pay >50€, don't compare impossible films to other films, compare it with other expensive luxuries that you consume - it will be easier to buy those films .

Prest_400 · May 25, 2016

It's hard indeed, but very fun! Also, a success around people (I'm 20), and pulling an SX70 draws conversation and curiosity. Sometimes I think of it as the machine that takes the kid out of people.
How about all of them?

RattyMouse said:
Or, I could go Impossible. I love the idea of shooting an SX-70, but the ISO of the available film is something like 150?? That's really slow, unlike the Instax film. Plus, the cost of Impossible film is really really really really really high. I do LOVE the square format though. And you get black and white. If only the film werent priced stupid high.

I just can't make up my mind...

I got an SX70 that was off a good home in another forum, which just gave me the path to Impossible (sounds like a pun). You point out the major shortcomings. Slow film makes me suffer in lower light, never having ventured darker than bright window lit interior (with decent results). The SLR680-690 might not have this problem as it uses 600 film.
Then it is not only the slower speeds but the extra care needed. Color film was slow developing (I have a pack of the new gen3 but yet to try) and it's best to shield the film in bright light. The BW is very nice, fast developing and (to my experience) robust.
Just very recently it was great time to get into IP as there were sales of the older generation film (depends on location too). Last 3 packs I got cost me 16€ each. Timing around the occasional sales for stocking up lowers price a bit. The price is a factor there, and I'm quite sparingly shooting with it.
The folding Polaroid SLR's are a beauty.

I'd like to try out instax mini. The wide seems very big and the Instax300 rivals my Fuji 6x9 in bulk. The SP1 is an interesting concept and on the web there are a few arguing in favor of their use for giving away prints. Still, not being a camera in itself and relying in a phone seems rather anticlimatic at times because some of the fun of instant film is having the camera spit out prints directly.

RattyMouse · May 25, 2016

Is there any reason why SX-70 film is such a low ISO value compared to 600 series film? I really struggle to understand this.

Prest_400 · May 25, 2016

SX70 was the first ever type of integral film. Probably technical. I don't know the specifics of why they began with ISO100 but probably was also the norm for pack film. 600 came in the 80s and Instax is a 90s product. Instax is based on Kodak's instant film that was removed with the lawsuit between them and Polaroid.
Polaroid did have an ISO3000 film back in the 60-70s. I'm not entirely sure of the history though.

Fixcinater · May 25, 2016

The Instantflex looks like a great option but it is only for the Mini film. If that used the Wide film, I would buy it.

The SX70+Impossible film is a good combo, mini tripod or add a flash if you really want to use in low light. Smelling the flash bulbs burning is fun but adds another variable when figuring out exposure. Instax wide back hacked onto a MF camera may be the best bet but would require some fabrication.

RattyMouse · May 25, 2016

Fixcinater said:
The Instantflex looks like a great option but it is only for the Mini film. If that used the Wide film, I would buy it.

The SX70+Impossible film is a good combo, mini tripod or add a flash if you really want to use in low light. Smelling the flash bulbs burning is fun but adds another variable when figuring out exposure. Instax wide back hacked onto a MF camera may be the best bet but would require some fabrication.

I'm leaning towards getting a Fuji 500AF. The price of the Impossible film is simply obscene. I dont know how anyone pays $3 a shot!

richyd · May 25, 2016

I'm sure I read somewhere that you can use 600 film in an SX70 and adjust the exposure with the compensating dial. Might be worth looking into.

RattyMouse · May 25, 2016

richyd said:
I'm sure I read somewhere that you can use 600 film in an SX70 and adjust the exposure with the compensating dial. Might be worth looking into.

I read that too. However, it doesnt lower the cost per shot!

Theo Sulphate · May 25, 2016

RattyMouse, I'm going through the same dilemma as you. As I see it:

Best image quality for me is from Fuji packfilm in my Super Shooter or EE100 Special. The prints are "large", the tonality is beautiful, the photos are sharp. Using pack film is fun because it involves you in the process. Peeling the print is always a surprise and has the "magic" of instant photography. Alas, the film is obscenely expensive and this route is a dead end.

I have an SX-70, SLR690, and Image 1200 (Spectra). I still use old Polaroid film in them, but the colors are off now. I have Impossible film, but haven't tried it. It's expensive, but I find it worthwhile to support the project, so I'll stay with it.

Instax is inexpensive and the quality is good - the cameras are goofy except for the little Neo 90 (which looks great) and the 210. I don't want to make photos the size of a business card, but I don't want a ginormous cartoon camera either. I think the Lomography camera that takes the 300-wide film is best. Even though it's large, it provides reasonable controls. If I were just starting out in instant photography, that's what I'd get - large photo, inexpensive film, camera is big but useful.

mooseontheloose · May 25, 2016

richyd said:
I'm sure I read somewhere that you can use 600 film in an SX70 and adjust the exposure with the compensating dial. Might be worth looking into.

An ND filter is better - either over the lens or on the film pack. But all it does is allow you to shoot a higher speed film at a lower ISO.

Ratty, the other thing with Impossible film is that the colour stability still needs work. The colours (even in black and white) will shift with time, unless you do something like emulsion lifts or scan your film soon after exposure, so that's something to consider as well.

vdonovan · May 25, 2016

Theo Sulphate said:
RattyMouse, I'm going through the same dilemma as you. As I see it:

Best image quality for me is from Fuji packfilm in my Super Shooter or EE100 Special. The prints are "large", the tonality is beautiful, the photos are sharp. Using pack film is fun because it involves you in the process. Peeling the print is always a surprise and has the "magic" of instant photography. Alas, the film is obscenely expensive and this route is a dead end.

I have an SX-70, SLR690, and Image 1200 (Spectra). I still use old Polaroid film in them, but the colors are off now. I have Impossible film, but haven't tried it. It's expensive, but I find it worthwhile to support the project, so I'll stay with it.

Instax is inexpensive and the quality is good - the cameras are goofy except for the little Neo 90 (which looks great) and the 210. I don't want to make photos the size of a business card, but I don't want a ginormous cartoon camera either. I think the Lomography camera that takes the 300-wide film is best. Even though it's large, it provides reasonable controls. If I were just starting out in instant photography, that's what I'd get - large photo, inexpensive film, camera is big but useful.

That's a nice summary of the current choices in instant photography, Theo. Maybe only missing the special case of shooting New55 positive/negative instant film in a hand-held large format camera like a Speed Graphic. Also expensive film, but another project worthy of support.

Sigh. When I first started shooting Fuji's peel apart instant film about 8 years ago, they were DUMPING the stuff on the US market. A pack of FP-3000b, (IMHO one of the best films of any sort ever made), went for as little as $8 at B&H. Those days are gone, never to return.

RattyMouse · May 26, 2016

mooseontheloose said:
An ND filter is better - either over the lens or on the film pack. But all it does is allow you to shoot a higher speed film at a lower ISO.

Ratty, the other thing with Impossible film is that the colour stability still needs work. The colours (even in black and white) will shift with time, unless you do something like emulsion lifts or scan your film soon after exposure, so that's something to consider as well.

This is true of the 2.0 film?

EdSawyer · May 26, 2016

$3/shot is not bad. that's the normal price of regular 4x5 sheet film in general. Think about FP100c45 @ $4-17/shot or old Polaroid 55 @ $10-20+/shot. Though I suppose at least with those not only do you get a full 4x5 image, but the materials and result quality are top-notch (presuming 55 not fully dried up.)

RattyMouse said:
I'm leaning towards getting a Fuji 500AF. The price of the Impossible film is simply obscene. I dont know how anyone pays $3 a shot!

RattyMouse · May 26, 2016

EdSawyer said:
$3/shot is not bad. that's the normal price of regular 4x5 sheet film in general. Think about FP100c45 @ $4-17/shot or old Polaroid 55 @ $10-20+/shot. Though I suppose at least with those not only do you get a full 4x5 image, but the materials and result quality are top-notch (presuming 55 not fully dried up.)

When you can pay $0.75/shot from Fuji INSTAX film, the Impossible film looks like a horrific deal.

darkosaric · May 26, 2016

RattyMouse said:
When you can pay $0.75/shot from Fuji INSTAX film, the Impossible film looks like a horrific deal.

But there is no B&W Instax film - if you want B&W there is no other option than Impossible.

RattyMouse · May 26, 2016

darkosaric said:
But there is no B&W Instax film - if you want B&W there is no other option than Impossible.

Actually, if you get the Fujifilm SP-1 Instax printer, you can print off monochrome images using that. I'm tempted!

darkosaric · May 26, 2016

RattyMouse said:
Actually, if you get the Fujifilm SP-1 Instax printer, you can print off monochrome images using that. I'm tempted!

Well, then you are in digital/hybrid flow: you can go even cheaper and buy some portable printer and print from your phone - but this is already off topic.

Peter Schrager · May 26, 2016

4x5 is than 3/sheet..add up all the costs involved .developer fixer etc..$3/sheet ain't all that bad...

mooseontheloose · May 26, 2016

RattyMouse said:
This is true of the 2.0 film?

Yes. Most of my shots from Europe last summer have turned to a sepia colour, even being stored in the dark (which is supposed to help with colour shift).

Why do you want to shoot instant? Just generally, or do you have specific idea in mind? I know Impossible is a bit pricey but I only shoot it for certain subjects and/or projects to make the most of it. Despite all the problems with it, I love shooting with the SX-70. If I shot instax or some other camera I would probably approach what I shoot differently.

RattyMouse · May 26, 2016

mooseontheloose said:
Yes. Most of my shots from Europe last summer have turned to a sepia colour, even being stored in the dark (which is supposed to help with colour shift).

Why do you want to shoot instant? Just generally, or do you have specific idea in mind? I know Impossible is a bit pricey but I only shoot it for certain subjects and/or projects to make the most of it. Despite all the problems with it, I love shooting with the SX-70. If I shot instax or some other camera I would probably approach what I shoot differently.

Wow...that sounds really lame. Why do you tolerate such poor color stability?

I dont know exactly why I want to shoot instant film, other than the fact that I find it a really fun and pleasurable form of photography. It's surprisingly different from traditional film and the fun factor of watching the images appear seems to never go away.

A Polaroid SX-70 sure looks like a fun camera to shoot, but the crazy high price of the film along with the poor color quality really makes it a hard choice to select.

Fuji seems to be the way to go. If only their cameras werent so lame.

RattyMouse · May 26, 2016

Peter Schrager said:
4x5 is than 3/sheet..add up all the costs involved .developer fixer etc..$3/sheet ain't all that bad...

You are using the wrong reference point. Impossible film is not 4 x 5. Fuji wide format film costs $0.75/shot.

RattyMouse · May 26, 2016

darkosaric said:
Well, then you are in digital/hybrid flow: you can go even cheaper and buy some portable printer and print from your phone - but this is already off topic.

The Fujifilm "printer" is really an instant film camera. The image is flashed onto the film with LED's. It's an entirely analogue process. The source might be digital but it's converted into an analogue signal and then imprinted onto the film.

A portable printer like you suggest has nothing to do with film.

Theo Sulphate · May 26, 2016

mooseontheloose said:
Yes. Most of my shots from Europe last summer have turned to a sepia colour, even being stored in the dark (which is supposed to help with colour shift).
...

I had no idea the 2.0 film had no stability. That greatly diminishes my desire for it, even though I want to continue shooting my Polaroid cameras.

I guess I'll use the four boxes I have, scan the results and hope there's a better 3.0 soon.

Impossible got the equipment and a few of the people, I can't understand why they weren't able to get more information about the chemicals & process from Polaroid documentation or engineers.

mike c · May 26, 2016

Just got an advertisement form Freestyle, they will be selling a camera made by the Impossible film people that uses 600 and SX70 Polaroid film that they make.

I want to shoot Instant Film

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency