Instax SQUARE SQ6...

[Prof_Pixel]

???

It uses a core and shell direct reversal emulsion and uses a dye releasing developing agent. There is no negative image formed.

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

 

[Billy Axeman]

It's simply a calculated strategy to balance the Mini and Square formats against each other and only Fuji knows what the numbers are and the predictions how this will evolve. They will just wait until Square takes over and then fade out Mini. In the mean time they ask a bit more for Square to pay for research and starting up production. This has nothing to do with Polaroid.

The downloadable PDF catalogue about SQ6 from Fuji also mentions a double pack (and the 'Black' version) so that will be cheaper.

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

There's no Polaroid to fight. Fuji can buy them out lock stock and barrel and not bat an eye.

 

[AgX]

It uses a core and shell direct reversal emulsion and uses a dye releasing developing agent. There is no negative image formed.

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

Well that's because instant film is slide film after all.

Even the reason, why both have a lesser exposure range is different.

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

 

[RattyMouse]

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.

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

So then what is Fuji doing?

 

[RattyMouse]

So then what is Fuji doing?

https://www.worldipreview.com/news/fujifilm-and-polaroid-begin-litigation-over-photo-borders-14933

 

[cramej]

https://www.worldipreview.com/news/fujifilm-and-polaroid-begin-litigation-over-photo-borders-14933

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

 

[RattyMouse]

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

Kodak fought and lost to Polaroid....big time. Nearly one billion dollars in losses if I remember right.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Kodak fought and lost to Polaroid....big time. Nearly one billion dollars in losses if I remember right.

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.

 

[AgX]

What do they say? "Before the court and on the high sea one is in God's hands'"

 

[ciniframe]

Let me see if I understand this correctly. If I contact print a 6X6 negative on a square piece of photo paper I have violated Polaroid IP because the photograph is a 'square within a square'.
Yes, I know it is not an instant photo but it is still a square within a square.
Wait just a minute, Kodak's 126 camera negatives were printed that way too. And 126 was still available when SX70 came out. Why didn't Polaroid sue Kodak then?
Nope, I hope the judge drop kicks that lawsuit into orbit. Then Polaroid will have to make money by actually competing and have a better product than Fujifilm.

 

[SilverShutter]

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.

Oh,my mistake. I always assumed slide and instant had more in common.

 

[Billy Axeman]

Today I ordered an Instax SQ6 in the color Pearl White with some film. After a search on various web shops the average price in Europe appears to be E 139,- but I bought it in a local shop. Our city still has a brick and mortar photo shop and I try to support them where possible. They even have film, chemicals and paper (mostly from Ilford) !

I have never used Instax, so one of the first things I will do is to dissect a film to see how it looks in a plain state. I guess you can peel off the cover sheet on the backside and clean away the developer. I hope the rest of the film is transparent.