New B&W impossible 8 x 10 Film

[darkosaric]

...clear advance on all previous Impossible B&W films, with much-improved tonal range, contrast, sharpness and stability.

Now, after several months of testing and refinement, we are now proud to introduce the all-new large-format version of the film to our European customers.



Dead Link Removed

Looks nice

 

[MDR]

Thanks for the head up you are right the results look very nice. Weird that nobody seems to be interested in that info though.

 

[jakelovesphoto]

I'm not entirely up to speed on how much 8x10 costs as the largest I have is 4x5. However 150$ a box seems like a lot.

 

[AgX]

8x10 was already expensive in the days of Polaroid.

 

[darkosaric]

25 sheets of 8x10 Ilford film is around 140 euros (fotoimpex), so comparing to that - instant film from impossible is not that expensive. It is expensive sport to shoot 8x10, that is why many go for paper in camera or Xray films.

 

[analoguey]

Is there 4x5 impossible film too?

Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[darkosaric]

Is there 4x5 impossible film too?

Sent from Tap-a-talk

No, and it will never be. Only new 55 project is hope for 4x5 shooters.

 

[bvy]

Impossible teased us with color 8x10 early last year. I hope they haven't abandoned it.

 

[BrianShaw]

No, and it will never be. Only new 55 project is hope for 4x5 shooters.

phhhhht.

 

[darkosaric]

phhhhht.

Say "thank you Polaroid for disassemble everything, and not trying to sell whole machine to somebody". I am not sure how this Chapter 11 works in USA, maybe they were forced to disassemble machine.

Quote from impossible:


We won't be able to produce 4x5, Type 100, or Type 80 films, as we don't have the production machinery. These were disassembled along with the factories that used to produce the film when Polaroid filed for Chapter 11.

See http://new55project.blogspot.com for some details on a project that aims to reproduce Type 55 film.

 

[Barry S]

Say "thank you Polaroid for disassemble everything, and not trying to sell whole machine to somebody". I am not sure how this Chapter 11 works in USA, maybe they were forced to disassemble machine.

Quote from impossible:


We won't be able to produce 4x5, Type 100, or Type 80 films, as we don't have the production machinery. These were disassembled along with the factories that used to produce the film when Polaroid filed for Chapter 11.

See http://new55project.blogspot.com for some details on a project that aims to reproduce Type 55 film.

You might want to have a chat with Tom Petters, currently having an extended stay at the Leavenworth Executive Suites.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Basically, the bastard sold the machines for scrap value to get rid of the buildings on the property and re-sell the land, because the company, although profitable, was making maybe $10M USD a year, but they were sitting on $100M worth of land.

 

[AgX]

To be fair, others from the photochemical industry sold their machines as scrap metal too.

Just because there was no single person wanting to buy them as machines.

 

[removed account4]

You might want to have a chat with Tom Petters, currently having an extended stay at the Leavenworth Executive Suites.

LOL

made my night, thanks !

 

[Xmas]

Basically, the bastard sold the machines for scrap value to get rid of the buildings on the property and re-sell the land, because the company, although profitable, was making maybe $10M USD a year, but they were sitting on $100M worth of land.

Maybee but predictions for market growth would have been negative so sell and invest in money for now and longer term growth normal capitalist ploy.

You boys are capitalists?

And you have lots of fraud...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

What Petters did was not capitalism, it was pure unbridled greed. There was no need for Polaroid to be bought - he looked at it, saw the balance sheets for the company and said "I can make $100M destroying this company and laying off several hundred people. Let's go do that". The only benefit to what he did was to his own pocketbook.

 

[AgX]

To be fair again it is to a company to protect themselves against exploitary take-over.

There also are weird laws on company/sub-company relations or on company ownership as such.

 

[Xmas]

What Petters did was not capitalism, it was pure unbridled greed.

I accept the 'pure unbridled greed' but I thought that was capitalism? If the funds do better some where else you move them?

 

[pdeeh]

an extended stay at the Leavenworth Executive Suites.

Could someone explain why this is funny? (I presume it's intended to be funny?)

I think there's a reference I'm not catching because I'm not American (I tried googling but just got real estate links back)

 

[Xmas]

He got sent to jail for running a Ponzi scheme.
Like us saying doing porridge.

 

[pdeeh]

Ah.
Well, what a naughty fellow he was, then ...

I suppose had I googled tom petters rather than leavenworth i'd have "got it"

 

[Xmas]

I spent school days in flea pits watching flicks.

 

[pdeeh]

Well good for you, that's what I say

 

[mhcfires]

He won't be in the slammer long enough.

m

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I accept the 'pure unbridled greed' but I thought that was capitalism? If the funds do better some where else you move them?

To paraphrase Eva Green in Casino Royale, "there's capitalism and then there's Capitalism. This is the latter". You can be a capitalist - invest your money in an enterprise to make more money so the money does the work, and not you. Ethical capitalism, though, would say that you have a responsibility to those who depend upon you. Why should you be entitled to make MORE of a profit at the expense of the lives and livelihoods of those who work for you? If the business is losing money or even just market share, is this not a failure of you as a leader of the company, and do you not deserve to go down with the ship?