Prof_Pixel
Allowing Ads
It uses a core and shell direct reversal emulsion and uses a dye releasing developing agent. There is no negative image formed.
What kills the SQ Instax for me is the price. Even Instax Wide is cheaper. I know it is relatively new but has been out for over a year and is still over $1 per shot, and, not offered in multi packs. Now perhaps the other Instax formats are priced artificially low, or Fijifilm is making so much film that unit cost have dropped to the point that they can offer volume discounts to dealers. That could be the case and the SQ format represents the true cost of shooting instant film. Regardless the reason, it's too pricy for me, I'd rather shoot Wide for .75 cents a shot than Square for $1.26 a shot.
It is odd how Fujifilm prices the square film so high. Maybe their are anticipating losing their fight against Polaroid and are building in a license fee into the price.
It uses a core and shell direct reversal emulsion and uses a dye releasing developing agent. There is no negative image formed.
Well that's because instant film is slide film after all.
Polaroid is a private company and so cannot be bought unless they want to be sold.There's no Polaroid to fight. Fuji can buy them out lock stock and barrel and not bat an eye.
Polaroid is a private company and so cannot be bought unless they want to be sold.
Fuji can go to court and drag it on for years and years. Meanwhile Polaroid sells their name to slap on cheap batteries. Polaroid doesn't have the capital to fight Fuji.
Lawyers will represent Polaroid for free, knowing that there's a huge pot of gold at the end when Fujifilm is found to have violated Polaroid's intellectual property.
In that case, I think I'll trademark "rectangle within a rectangle" and go after everyone who has printed a photograph with borders.
Oh, wait. PLR beat me to it......Trademark #4,550,864
It was settled based on the idea of a "concept patent" for 'instant photography' by a judge in Polaroid's home town who appears not to have understood the major technology differences.Kodak fought and lost to Polaroid....big time. Nearly one billion dollars in losses if I remember right.
Oh,my mistake. I always assumed slide and instant had more in common.There is no direct reversal emulsion at slide films. Nor is there a dye-releasing developer.
The only similarity between slide films and instant films is, that both finally form a positive as result.
Thus technically one may not say
Even the reason, why both have a lesser exposure range is different.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?