Polaroid Discontinued--Boston Globe 02/08/08

patrickjames said:

I always preferred Fuji instant films over Polaroid. It is sad, but Fuji will continue making film and the world will continue on. Type 55 will be missed though. That film is one of the most beautiful I think.

Patrick

Click to expand...

While that is true to a LIMITED extent..as of now, Fuji only makes a few instant film products..

If Fuji will expand their offerings then all is good, but consider as of now, there are no future instant materials in 4x5 sheets (Type 79, 55) No 8x10 materials, no 20x24 materials, and no integral pack films.

Renato Tonelli said:

I'm pissed, again!... but I will get over it, again.
Two questions:
1) Supposing one had a chance of stocking up on Polaroid material: - what might be the optimum temperature that it could be refrigerated (not frozen) and for how long?
2) It is my understanding that Fuji's versions come in a pack, not single sheets. Is this correct? I could look it up, of course, and eventually I will but right now I am in a foul mood.

Click to expand...

Polaroid type materials are probably the worst for long term storage..but refrigerator storage in vapor proof bags would be my suggestion. No freezing.

Yes, Fuji materials that can be used for 4x5 images are pack film, 10 exposures per pack, a bit less expensive than the current prices for Polaroid type 79 in 4x5 sheets.

But, you have to use the pack film back, which is thicker than the Polaroid 4x5 individual sheet back, and may not fit under some ground glass backs.

That wikipedia entry for Dr. Land was a good quick read. He did seem like a pretty interesting guy to say the least.

Fashion designers are going to be very upset by the loss of Polaroid materials. Every time French TV airs a show about a famous designer, you see a staffer using a Polaroid to take shots of garments as they're being designed. Even digital isn't fast enough for the purpose they use Polaroids.

Can making Polaroid film really be unprofitable?

Trask said:

Fashion designers are going to be very upset by the loss of Polaroid materials. Every time French TV airs a show about a famous designer, you see a staffer using a Polaroid to take shots of garments as they're being designed. Even digital isn't fast enough for the purpose they use Polaroids.

Can making Polaroid film really be unprofitable?

Click to expand...

I think the cost of manufacture in the Northeast where Polaroid plants are located can make it unprofitable in the reduced volume now consumed.

Stephen Frizza said:

my clients complain that the colour in fuji is too good hehehe....oh and some complain that fuji has bigger problems with reciprocity failure. any enlightenment?

Polaroid gone? Im crying.

Click to expand...

The FP100C is somewhere between Polaroid 669 and 690 in colour response. I really think Polaroid 690 would fit more in the too good colour description. Time exposures on either Polaroid or Fuji Instant don't seem to work so well over one minute, though it is possible, but then you get a weird colour shift.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

Boston Globe 02/08/08

February 8, 2008, 3:32 pm
Polaroid Abandons Instant Photography

By Patrick J. Lyons
nytimes.com

It was a wonder in its time: A camera that spat out photos that developed themselves in a few minutes as you watched. You got to see them where and when you took them, not a week later when the prints came back from the drugstore.

But in a day when nearly every cellphone has a digital camera in it, “instant” photography long ago stopped being instant enough for most people. So today, the inevitable end of an era came: Polaroid is getting out of the Polaroid business.

The company, which stopped making instant cameras for consumers a year ago and for commercial use a year before that, said today that as soon as it had enough instant film manufactured to last it through 2009, it would stop making that, too. Three plants that make large-format instant film will close by the end of the quarter, and two that make consumer film packets will be shut by the end of the year, Bloomberg News reports.

The company, which will concentrate on digital cameras and printers, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2001 and was acquired by a private investment company in 2005. It started in 1937 making polarized lenses for scientific and military applications, and introduced its first instant camera in 1948.

The Lede remembers fondly how magical it was to watch the image gradually manifest itself from the chemical murk right there in your hand. But truth be told, the Lede’s own scuffed Polaroid SX-70 camera, which used to get regular use in all manner of situations, from producing a quick step-by-step primer on how to do the Ickey Shuffle to documenting a problem with a house he was buying that cropped up the day before the closing, hasn’t come out of its cabinet drawer in years.

Loyal users take heart, though — Polaroid said it would happily license the technology to other manufacturers should they want to go on supplying the niche market with film after 2009.

Farewell Polaroid (unless you want a re-branded TV)

Very very sad to say that the Polaroid rumor floated around yesterday appears to be true. The news hit the AP wire a couple hours ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/08/AR2008020802903.html

This is indeed a day I hoped would never come.

-Mark

We've been merging various new threads on this topic into this one as they get posted. I've also renamed it and moved it to the Product Availability forum.

So maybe time to send production to China ?

For those who wish to purchase stocks of Polaroid materials, you must remember that the pods do not keep well at all and cannot be frozen. The pods contain concentrated Sodium Hydroxide, and as such they eat through the packing material and then try up. The film may be good, but without pods of processing chemistry the film is useless.

Do not freeze it. It can be kept a few months beyond expiration date in a refrigerator. Common problems with old Polaroid are leaks of goo, poor spread and bad color. Ultimately the pods go dry. You can tell this by the fact that they either bloom with crystals or they become hard. Unfortunately, to test this, you destroy the film itself.

PE

Say it aint so Joe...

paulie

Polaroid shutting down article from Boston sad sad

Polaroid shutting 2 Mass. facilities, laying off 150
As company exits film business, plants will close in Norwood, Waltham
Email|Print| Text size – + By Hiawatha Bray
Globe Staff / February 8, 2008
Polaroid Corp., the Massachusetts company that gave the world instant film photography, is shutting down its film manufacturing lines in the state and abandoning the technology that made the company famous.

more stories like this"The Norwood plant is shutting down, and we will soon be winding down activities at the Waltham facility as well," said Kyle MacDonald, senior vice president of Polaroid's instant photography business segment. The closures, set for completion during this quarter, will eliminate about 150 jobs. In the late 1970s, Polaroid employed about 15,000 in Massachusetts.

The Norwood and Waltham plants make large-format films used by professional photographers and artists. Polaroid also makes professional-grade films in Mexico, and its consumer film packs come from a factory in the Netherlands. All these plants are slated for closure this year. Polaroid chief operating officer Tom Beaudoin said the company is interested in licensing its technology to an outside firm that could manufacture film for faithful Polaroid customers. If that doesn't happen, Polaroid users would have to find an alternative photo technology, as the company plans to make only enough film to last into next year.

Polaroid has already quietly halted production of instant cameras. "We stopped making commercial-type cameras about 18 to 24 months ago, and we stopped making consumer cameras about a year ago," said Beaudoin.

"It's about time," said Ron Glaz, director of digital imaging program at IDC Corp. "The fact that they're getting out of film makes complete sense."

In the years following World War II, Polaroid's instant photography products established the company as one of Massachusetts' leading industrial concerns, and made its brand name famous worldwide. But in the late 1980s the company went deeply into debt to fend off a hostile takeover. It invested heavily in products that failed and was unprepared for the surging popularity of digital cameras. By 2001, Polaroid was forced into bankruptcy; privately held Petters Group Worldwide of Minnetonka, Minn., bought the company's remaining assets in 2005.

The Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development is providing employment assistance to laid-off workers, some of whom were warned about the cuts two years ago. Along with standard job-placement services, the state agency joined with Worcester Polytechnic Institute last year to retrain laid-off Polaroid workers for manufacturing jobs at biotechnology companies. About 30 workers have been retrained under the program so far.

The company will retain about 150 executive and administrative employees at its headquarters in Concord and a smaller office in Waltham. "We'll continue to have a strong presence in Massachusetts for the next 30 or 40 years," said Beaudoin. But Polaroid will now focus on flat-panel TVs and digital photography gear.

Polaroid has also struck an alliance with Zink Imaging Inc. of Bedford, a company founded by former Polaroid scientists and executives. Zink makes a system that generates pocket-sized prints of digital photos. Polaroid will begin selling Zink photo printers under its brand name this year.

Ed Lee, a digital photography analyst at InfoTrends Inc. in Weymouth, said the Zink printer could have a bright future in the long run. But he said the current model, which produces images about the size of a business card, probably won't appeal to the mass market. "I don't see a lot of people using it for printing photos that will wind up in photo albums," he said.

IDC's Glaz added that sales of home photo printers have slowed in recent years. He said today's consumers prefer to look at photos on their computer screens, and are more likely to say, "E-mail that to me, rather than give me a hard copy."

Hiawatha Bray can be reached at bray@globe

This calls for a shooting binge with my sx-70 followed by a memorial service

Of course it's sad to see any film format die - but truth be told - this news is neither surprising nor unanticipated.

In the consumer market, Polaroid was always viewed mostly as a good times "snappies" product. These days, slipping a memory card into an instant printer gets one m/l to the same place.

At the same time, Polaroid's professional film market was to small too be able to support required production levels to maintain a profitable enterprise.

What troubles me most is the fact that this turn of events may be but a harbinger of much worse to come.

You know, some days it's just so hard to "keep the faith" for film.

I'm not so sure that instant film is unprofitable. However, there are tangential costs associated with owning and running factories which Polaroid wanted to divest itself of.

As for the concept that the professional market couldn't consume enough to keep it going, I have to disagree. The professional market must have outsold the consumers hands down. Law enforcement, movies/tv, medical, bio and chemistry, fashion, etc can really burn through film and the $1/shot isn't really a problem for them.

amuderick said:

.....

As for the concept that the professional market couldn't consume enough to keep it going, I have to disagree. The professional market must have outsold the consumers hands down. Law enforcement, movies/tv, medical, bio and chemistry, fashion, etc can really burn through film and the $1/shot isn't really a problem for them.

Click to expand...

Well, if this were the case - why are they closing down?

Out of spite?

I don't think so.

They're closing down because they cannot make any money making and selling the stuff anymore.

That's because: Law enforcement, movies/tv, medical, bio and chemistry, fashion, etc. have gone digital!

As I said, it's hard enough some days "keeping the faith" w/o having to also actually think about all of the lost markets!

copake_ham said:

Well, if this were the case - why are they closing down?

Out of spite?

I don't think so.

They're closing down because they cannot make any money making and selling the stuff anymore.

That's because: Law enforcement, movies/tv, medical, bio and chemistry, fashion, etc. have gone digital!

As I said, it's hard enough some days "keeping the faith" w/o having to also actually think about all of the lost markets!

Click to expand...

Your statements are just not true. I still use plenty of Instant film for testing for my studio and location transparency photography. There are plenty of Passport and ID photo systems that still use instant film, the Fashion industry uses Polaroid, many many other niche uses. My photo vendor, Unique Photo said their Instant film sales were showing considerable growth due to the rush to get Passports by US citizens for the new border regulations. Yes, believe it or not, not everyone immediately threw their Polaroid based photo ID systems in the trash the minute there was a digital choice. These camera systems can work for decades. The statement that Polaroid can't make a profit on its film sales is more a reflection on how the company is run, than how the film sells. They have too much capacity for the market. Other companies, like Kodak downsize rather than go away.

c6h6o3 said:

Polaroid's been the walking dead since Dr. Land passed on. No company founded upon and driven by the vision of such an iconoclastic engineer can very long outlast that founder. R.I.P. indeed. To me he was the greatest of them all.

Click to expand...

I dunno about that. Land wasn't universally held in high regard along Memorial Drive. Frankly, I don't think he holds a candle to, say, Mees, Barnack and some others.

People forget that the "Polar" in Polaroid refers to Polarization and Land's greates contribution was the development of the technology used in sunglasses. Polaroid derived substantial income from the patents used in sunglasses and when those patents started to run out in the 80s they company really went downhill. I believe, in fact, they almost went bankrupt in the 80s.

As to this announcement; it's no surprise. The group running Polaroid has been trying to peddle the Norwood and Waltham properties for the last couple years. At the start of last year there was a rumor that they would sell the property to Raytheon (which has a large presence in Waltham, MA) but it never happened. And there's been a buzz on foreign-language photo boards for months that the Netherlands facility was going to be closed.

PHOTOTONE said:

Your statements are just not true. I still use plenty of Instant film for testing for my studio and location transparency photography. There are plenty of Passport and ID photo systems that still use instant film, the Fashion industry uses Polaroid, many many other niche uses. My photo vendor, Unique Photo said their Instant film sales were showing considerable growth due to the rush to get Passports by US citizens for the new border regulations. Yes, believe it or not, not everyone immediately threw their Polaroid based photo ID systems in the trash the minute there was a digital choice. These camera systems can work for decades. The statement that Polaroid can't make a profit on its film sales is more a reflection on how the company is run, than how the film sells. They have too much capacity for the market. Other companies, like Kodak downsize rather than go away.

Click to expand...

Whatever you may do with their products has proven to be immaterial. The simple fact is that they're out of the business.

Wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.

No one goes out of business because they are making money. Whether there is no demand for their product or whether, instead, they are just stupid really doesn't matter as regards the end result; does it?

If there is remaining value in the business line - then someone will buy it. They've put the operation up for sale. We'll see what happens. But don't confuse your personal need (want) with overall market demand - which is, quite frankly, what you seem to be doing.

EDIT: Oh, BTW, as to the passport thing. It's a "one off". And a likely reason why they said they'd make enough pro film to last through 2009.

I'm not looking to rain on your parade here - I just fail to see any silver lining with this kind of news and also don't find myself surprised by it.

Polaroid snaps out of making film

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7236106.stm

copake_ham said:

Whatever you may do with their products has proven to be immaterial. The simple fact is that they're out of the business.

Wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.

No one goes out of business because they are making money. Whether there is no demand for their product or whether, instead, they are just stupid really doesn't matter as regards the end result; does it?

If there is remaining value in the business line - then someone will buy it. They've put the operation up for sale. We'll see what happens. But don't confuse your personal need (want) with overall market demand - which is, quite frankly, what you seem to be doing.

EDIT: Oh, BTW, as to the passport thing. It's a "one off". And a likely reason why they said they'd make enough pro film to last through 2009.

I'm not looking to rain on your parade here - I just fail to see any silver lining with this kind of news and also don't find myself surprised by it.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but profitable business operations get shuttered ALL the time. Quite simply, if the investors determine that the invested capital could be put to better uses or the NPV of the sale of the operation exceeds that of continuing operations - that business operation is toast.

Trust me on this one; I have experience.

I worked for a startup in early 2000 that had a 15% net profit at the time the VC called in our subordinated debt to cover losses they were experiencing with other investments. We went Chapter 7 three days later.

Yes, the operation is up for sale but it is far, far more likely the plant, property, and equipment will be sold off in pieces than for somebody to step in and continue operations. I just don't see that happening.

The final paragraph of this BBC news story does give a semblance of hope: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7236106.stm

'It [polaroid] says there is enough film in stock to last until 2009, and it hopes to sell licensing rights to another firm to continue supplying enthusiasts who still use their Polaroid cameras.'

Call me a pessimist, but I doubt Fuji would buy into the Polaroid system.
Mind, I don't have much experience with instant film, but Fuji seems to be doing okay with its own, why would it take Polaroids, too?
Unless they wanted to keep the Japanese Polaroid users happy (there are quite a few over here; SX-70s sell used for $300 and up.)

I feel bad for all the folks who have used Polaroid materials as final creative media, especially folks like Tracey Storer who have dedicated so much time, energy and talent to the use of the famous 20x24 polaroid cameras. It's sad to think of those cameras relegated to musuem peices or worse simply junked for tax purposes. Truly the end of an era.

I hope Ilford/Harman Technologies does not persue the mfg of Polaroid materials. They already have a fairly tenuous business with B&W film. It would simply be a tremendous drag on the company's bottom line, placing the continuance of film products in jeopardy.

I guess if their is one lesson to be drawn from this, it is not to become to attached to any one product, format or even medium when it comes to photography. If you fall to much in love your heart will eventually be broken.