Kodak Instant film

[Anscojohn]

I don't recall seeing this in stores. But I vividly remember advertising for this. Did they actually advertise for something they never sold?

*****
I also seem to remember selling a product designated "Trimprint." If I recall correctly (never a given) after a considerable period of time, the print could be snapped out of the pod/support/ matrix (whatever the proper term) for easier insertion in photo albums.

 

[Photo Engineer]

John;

PR-10 was designed to have that done. That was a second improvement. Here are the list of PR-10 changes I remember.

1. Glossy prints and square corners
2. Matte prints (or kinda silk finish) and round corners
3. Peel apart or "pop out" prints that could be separated from the pod and backing

4. The end.

PE

 

[pfeld]

Instant Color, Pavell

I'm 70 years old, originally from White Plains, NY. We had neighbors named Pavell (sp?) and I remember my father talking about the fact that Mr. Pavell had developed a color process and was in a legal battle with Kodak. Anyone know anything about this?

I'm retired from teaching photography at the University of Iowa and an artist/photographer

 

[Photo Engineer]

Pavelle sued Kodak in the '70s due to the change from Ektaprint C to Ektaprint 3 for paper and from C-22 to C-41 for film. Mr. Pavelle said that this was done to hurt small companies. He won the lawsuit as Kodak was branded the big giant villain in this case. Actually, we didn't pay much attention to the Pavelle kits and so Mr. Pavelle may have thought we targeted him but nothing could be further from the truth.

Kodak was also sued by Berkey and GAF at the same time and for similar reasons.

Losing the lawsuits when we had evidence to help win it was a blow to EK and changed direction on several projects including the use of CD-6 in other products than Kodachrome. In the end, Kodak was hurt internally and the customers lost out on some neat products. Mr. Pavelle won a small skirmish that really did more harm than good. My opinion from being involved in this skirmish. I was deposed by the court to offer written testimony.

PE

 

[JohnnieVan]

Hi All,

Here she is PR144-10. I bought the colorburst 50 today and started trawling and found this thread. Thanks for the links to modify was curious if the Instax worked as a possible replacement.

Cheers

Johnnie

 

[Prof_Pixel]

View attachment 60026

Hi All,

Here she is PR144-10. I bought the colorburst 50 today and started trawling and found this thread. Thanks for the links to modify was curious if the Instax worked as a possible replacement.

Fuji Instax is basically Kodak Instant Film; Kodak licensed the technology to Fuji, and Fuji was never sued by Polaroid so kept on making the film for sale outside the US and Canada. For a while, Fuji film packs could be modified to work in a Kodak camera. This is no longer true.

 

[JohnnieVan]

Anybody know anything about the TIP (team impossible project) or Summit for possible instant film production for discontinued products and would pr10/800gt/ace be manufactured?

 

[Prof_Pixel]

The Kodak Instant Film is completely different from Polaroid so I can't see the IP folks getting involved. It would be nice if Fuji manufactured Fujix film packs that worked in old Kodak Instant Cameras, but I just can't see that happening.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I don't recall seeing this in stores. But I vividly remember advertising for this. Did they actually advertise for something they never sold?

Kodak DID sell Trimprint Instant Film that allowed you to separate the image from the rest of the picture unit, but this was far different from the Polaroid peel-apart film.

 

[JohnnieVan]

Just to confirm then with regards to the current production line of Fujifilm instant film there is no direct replacement for there discontinued 800gt/Ace film packs? I emailed TIP so would like to hear what they have to say from a purely positive standpoint it can only be good for them as there seems to be a untapped niche market for either the 800gt or the pr10 just my guesstimate.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Kodak Instant Film/Fuji Fujix Instant film works completely differently than Polaroid films. The only thing they have in common is the word 'Instant'.

Fuji COULD make film packs that worked in the old Kodak cameras but I doubt the market is big enough to make it worthwhile. After Kodak lost the Polaroid lawsuit I suspect people just threw away the cameras.

 

[Photo Engineer]

There is a thread here somewhere that describes a method of modifying a Fuji pack to fit a Kodak camera. It involves trimming off a tab and using a neutral density filter over the sensor among other things.

PE

 

[Prof_Pixel]

There is a thread here somewhere that describes a method of modifying a Fuji pack to fit a Kodak camera. It involves trimming off a tab and using a neutral density filter over the sensor among other things.

PE

Unfortunately, that style Fuji film pack is no longer being made.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I wonder how it fits into their cameras then!

PE

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I wonder how it fits into their cameras then!

PE

I think they changed the picture unit size and no longer make the old size.

 

[Photo Engineer]

That would obsolete all of their own old cameras then.

PE

 

[Prof_Pixel]

That would obsolete all of their own old cameras then.

PE

I guess.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_film#Fujifilm:

Instax series ISO 800 films, ACE series ISO 800 films. Compatible with Fujifilm's Fotorama ACE series of instant cameras. (discontinued June 2010), 800 series ISO 800 films. Compatible with Fujifilm's Fotorama 800 series instant cameras. (discontinued June 2010), F Series ISO 160. Compatible with Fotorama F series instant cameras. Discontinued in the mid-1990s

 

[JohnnieVan]

That would obsolete all of their own old cameras then.

PE

Exactly so they (Fujufilm) would still have the technology/machines to still produce but that would have to be done by some other company that specializes in discontinued instant film production e.g.TIP

I don't know anything about the instant film production process but if the technology is available surely a niche market company like TIP would jump at the opportunity to create a bigger market as then all fuji product owners that utilized 800/Ace films are customers and old Kodak product owners as well? Seems like a deal for all.

Thanks

 

[fotch]

Kodak did not produce a peel apart product. It was produced internally but never sold on the open market.

Kodak did produce Ektaflex C and R for prints. They were sold up until the end of the lawsuit with Polaroid.

I ask one question here. Was the Polaroid win good or bad for us all using hindsight? Was the GAF / Pavell lawsuit good or bad for us all? IMHO, all of them were bad for all concerned.

PE

In hindsight, it was bad. Oh well....

 

[ektachrome]

I have one of these cameras and have had some of the film.
The films I hav had are:
PR-10
Instagraphic Slide film
Instagraphic Print film
PR-144 Trimprint

Also, the PR-10 is ISO 160, the Trimprint is ISO 800!
On a final note, you can use 1 shot of polaroid spectra/PZ film in one of these cameras.

Ektachrome
P.S I have attached some pictures

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Just before the Polaroid lawsuit was settled, Kodak was working on a slide film (really a 'lantern slide') and projector. It was peeled from the picture unit (like the Trimprint film) and there were plastic slide holders to hold the film. To the best of mu knowledge, it never hit the market (although there were external trade trials). Loosing the Polaroid lawsuit ended the product.

A year or so after leaving Kodak, I was invited to visit Polaroid. I had an hour (or so) discussion with a senior manager about to retire and we swapped stories about projects. When I mentioned the transparency film and projector, he went over to a cabinet and pulled out a small projector and asked "Like this?"; it turns out Polaroid also worked on such a product.

 

[Photo Engineer]

At that same time, we at EK were working on an ISO 3200 print material for all Kodak instant cameras. Some of those sold had an ISO adjustment made by the pack when inserted into the camera. This film used metalized dyes that had extremely good image stability. There would have been nothing like it on the market for speed or stability.

This was all lost due to the law suit. Even though this chemistry was like nothing on the market, the judge also acted on the "idea" of instant being infringed by Kodak and so we stopped all instant work. It is interesting to note that Polaroid did not go after Fuji.

PE

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Even though this chemistry was like nothing on the market, the judge also acted on the "idea" of instant being infringed by Kodak and so we stopped all instant work.

Yup, the judge (in Boston) decided the case on the basis of a 'concept patent' - instant photography - and not on the actual technologies used. I had an acquaintance who was a Xerox patent lawyer, and he strongly supported the 'concept patent' approach.

 

[Photo Engineer]

And yet our attorneys said that "concept" approach could not be used and EK would win.

On another note, the EK copy machines were not challenged by Xerox even though they could have used the "concept" approach. Kodak used a flexible sensitized sheet, while Xerox used a fixed metal plate.

PE