I had several Polaroid cameras in year's past. Back then, all I could afford was the Swinger or Super Swinger types, the one's that were aimed at the snapshot shooter market. There were several times that I used a more expensive one, a roll film model, such as an 110A or the likes, but I was quite young, couldn't afford a professional grade camera. Above all other reasons, my photographic interest was not very serious.
All those old reasons changed a few years ago. I became seriously interested in photography. In 2004, I bought an 8x10 view camera with a 4x5 reducing back. A year later, I invested in a 4x5 Polaroid film holder and several boxes of film. After shooting just a few sheets, I was hopelessly hooked. Type 54 B&W had a wonderful tone, just slightly warm. Type 55 gave a print that was a small gem or a wonderful negative. There was no fussing with N+1 or N-1, short development, extended development, agitation, or any of those film processing variables. Just meter the shot at 25 asa, and develop for sixty seconds. It always worked and didn't require a darkroom nor mixing chemicals. Then I learned how to solarize a Type 55 negative. Another little creative joy added to my repertoire.
The Type 59 color film had a very pleasing color palette. I liked it the best of any color film I had used, either print or transparency. Then there were emulsion transfers and emulsion lifts that were explored. I bought an SX-70 and explored the capabilities of the Time Zero film, both straight and manipulated. Great fun, wonderful spontaneity. It was a delight to use.
But now, Polaroid is in final demise. In a short while, there will be no more Polaroid film. A good many reasons have been stated as to why this happened. But I think there may be a couple more that I haven't seen discussed yet.
First, I think Polaroid may have been highly under appreciated by a great many of its most important users; working professional photographers and successful fine art photographers. There were always a few of each type who were "names" and featured Polaroid materials in their work. But it also seems like there were many who used a lot of Polaroid for test shots, but still regarded those shots as throw-away "crappy polaroids".
Some regard quoting Ansel Adams as cliché, but tough dirt, I'm doing it anyway. In his book "Polaroid Land Photography", Adams' very first statement is "My early experience with the Polaroid Land process convinced me of its rewarding potentials in many fields of practical and creative photography."
I have to agree with Adams. My experience is very small compared to his, but I believe his introductory comment was quite precise. As I said earlier, a Type 55 print had a jewel-like quality. I have found that to be true with the other B&W types I have tried, namely Type 52, 54, and the sepia-toned Type 56. In his discussion about Type 52, Adams says "Indeed, it is practically impossible to make a conventional print that equals the unique quality of a fine Polaroid Type 52 original." Again, I have to agree.
Although I am referring to 4x5 sheet films, please don't forget that there were medium format pack film equivalents to several of these types. Polaroid pack film backs were available for essentially all good medium format cameras that had interchangeable film backs. These film backs were considered to be essential to many a working photographer's kit.
So, with films capable of such fine results, why did so many consider them to be "just crappy polaroids"? Of course I can't give a definitive answer. I think that perhaps many of our colleagues just had that mind set; Polaroid was only good for proofing and lighting tests, not for the "serious" shots, especially when those "serious" shots bring in the money. After all, you could only get one print from a Polaroid shot and what good is that?
But there was a positive/negative film available in both medium and large formats with an abundance of evidence that these films were capable of a high degree of enlargement. What was "wrong" with them? One of the question's I've seen numerous times was from people who could not understand why the film could not produce both a good print and a good negative from the same exposure. One had to meter it at different speeds for the print and the negative. The reasons for this were rooted down in the technical details, in the inherent physical differences between a negative film emulsion and a paper print emulsion. Perhaps many just dismissed that as "no good" or wasteful. No doubt there were others who did not like the negative processing steps or were perhaps skeptical of the "black goo" gel that had to be cleared from the negative. Again, there is overwhelming evidence against these apprehensions, but they no doubt had influence on potential users.
Maybe Polaroid could have done more in its product promotion to play up on creative use of the products, but it always seemed to me that they went far beyond what other film companies did in showcasing the creative ways that their customers came up with for using it. Adams and Minor White were great contributors to this effort in their days. In recent times, Polaroid's Creative section on their website featured gallery presentations from photographers of all experience levels from all parts of the world. One did not have to be a "name" to get their work featured; it just had to be good creative photography. But once Adams and White were gone, maybe the lack of "names" using the product caused a reduction in its status in the community. Perhaps there was too much emphasis on the showcasing the slightly avant garde or the more artsy genres.
Finally, perhaps many users just did not look closely, nor explore the possibilities that Polaroid was capable of. The "crappy Polaroid" mindset just wouldn't die for reasons that escape me. So maybe in the end, there's some blame to share by all of us in the photographic community for not realizing what Polaroid could do, and by that, we under appreciated its value and worth, and unwittingly, helped seal its fate.
All those old reasons changed a few years ago. I became seriously interested in photography. In 2004, I bought an 8x10 view camera with a 4x5 reducing back. A year later, I invested in a 4x5 Polaroid film holder and several boxes of film. After shooting just a few sheets, I was hopelessly hooked. Type 54 B&W had a wonderful tone, just slightly warm. Type 55 gave a print that was a small gem or a wonderful negative. There was no fussing with N+1 or N-1, short development, extended development, agitation, or any of those film processing variables. Just meter the shot at 25 asa, and develop for sixty seconds. It always worked and didn't require a darkroom nor mixing chemicals. Then I learned how to solarize a Type 55 negative. Another little creative joy added to my repertoire.
The Type 59 color film had a very pleasing color palette. I liked it the best of any color film I had used, either print or transparency. Then there were emulsion transfers and emulsion lifts that were explored. I bought an SX-70 and explored the capabilities of the Time Zero film, both straight and manipulated. Great fun, wonderful spontaneity. It was a delight to use.
But now, Polaroid is in final demise. In a short while, there will be no more Polaroid film. A good many reasons have been stated as to why this happened. But I think there may be a couple more that I haven't seen discussed yet.
First, I think Polaroid may have been highly under appreciated by a great many of its most important users; working professional photographers and successful fine art photographers. There were always a few of each type who were "names" and featured Polaroid materials in their work. But it also seems like there were many who used a lot of Polaroid for test shots, but still regarded those shots as throw-away "crappy polaroids".
Some regard quoting Ansel Adams as cliché, but tough dirt, I'm doing it anyway. In his book "Polaroid Land Photography", Adams' very first statement is "My early experience with the Polaroid Land process convinced me of its rewarding potentials in many fields of practical and creative photography."
I have to agree with Adams. My experience is very small compared to his, but I believe his introductory comment was quite precise. As I said earlier, a Type 55 print had a jewel-like quality. I have found that to be true with the other B&W types I have tried, namely Type 52, 54, and the sepia-toned Type 56. In his discussion about Type 52, Adams says "Indeed, it is practically impossible to make a conventional print that equals the unique quality of a fine Polaroid Type 52 original." Again, I have to agree.
Although I am referring to 4x5 sheet films, please don't forget that there were medium format pack film equivalents to several of these types. Polaroid pack film backs were available for essentially all good medium format cameras that had interchangeable film backs. These film backs were considered to be essential to many a working photographer's kit.
So, with films capable of such fine results, why did so many consider them to be "just crappy polaroids"? Of course I can't give a definitive answer. I think that perhaps many of our colleagues just had that mind set; Polaroid was only good for proofing and lighting tests, not for the "serious" shots, especially when those "serious" shots bring in the money. After all, you could only get one print from a Polaroid shot and what good is that?
But there was a positive/negative film available in both medium and large formats with an abundance of evidence that these films were capable of a high degree of enlargement. What was "wrong" with them? One of the question's I've seen numerous times was from people who could not understand why the film could not produce both a good print and a good negative from the same exposure. One had to meter it at different speeds for the print and the negative. The reasons for this were rooted down in the technical details, in the inherent physical differences between a negative film emulsion and a paper print emulsion. Perhaps many just dismissed that as "no good" or wasteful. No doubt there were others who did not like the negative processing steps or were perhaps skeptical of the "black goo" gel that had to be cleared from the negative. Again, there is overwhelming evidence against these apprehensions, but they no doubt had influence on potential users.
Maybe Polaroid could have done more in its product promotion to play up on creative use of the products, but it always seemed to me that they went far beyond what other film companies did in showcasing the creative ways that their customers came up with for using it. Adams and Minor White were great contributors to this effort in their days. In recent times, Polaroid's Creative section on their website featured gallery presentations from photographers of all experience levels from all parts of the world. One did not have to be a "name" to get their work featured; it just had to be good creative photography. But once Adams and White were gone, maybe the lack of "names" using the product caused a reduction in its status in the community. Perhaps there was too much emphasis on the showcasing the slightly avant garde or the more artsy genres.
Finally, perhaps many users just did not look closely, nor explore the possibilities that Polaroid was capable of. The "crappy Polaroid" mindset just wouldn't die for reasons that escape me. So maybe in the end, there's some blame to share by all of us in the photographic community for not realizing what Polaroid could do, and by that, we under appreciated its value and worth, and unwittingly, helped seal its fate.
