Polaroid Discontinued--Boston Globe 02/08/08

Photo Engineer · Feb 9, 2008

A couple of comments here.

Kodak survived the death of its guiding 'genius', George Eastman, and if Polaroid does not, it is due to Land. As I understand it, he set up no strong people to back him up when he left.

As for Fuji, they are using the Polaroid system right now. They have nothing to buy into, as they already have 'rights' and all of the packing equipment.

One individual photographer, buying film, cannot save a product or company. Even all 20,000+ of us at APUG cannot make a dent in what has been lost to both Kodak and Polaroid. And, Polaroid being smaller cannot easily scale down as Kodak has done. It Kodak has 10 machines, they move down to 1 or 2 as needed, but Polaroid may only have 1 or 2 so downsizing is difficult. Also, if they don't have the technology to coat the same way as Kodak, that is if they coat a lot slower, they cannot slow the coating machine(s) down either.

So, scaling down for a small company is almost impossible compared to Kodak.

PE

Bob F. · Feb 9, 2008

I also can see no reason for Fuji to buy Polaroid; why would they?

All very sad, but T-55 priced itself out of my hands some time ago. Fantastic film though.

My own making-the-best-of-a-bad-situation scenario now would be for Harman/Ilford to buy the finishing and confectioning equipment etc for a song and start producing Delta/HP5/FP4 Readyloads!

I know, I know: it's not gonna happen... A man can dream can't he?

Bob.

AgX · Feb 9, 2008

BobNewYork said:
... am I not right in thinking that the original 'instant imaging' patents were held by Agfa and that, at the end of WWII, the Allies declared all German patents null and void?

Photo Engineer said:
Agfa had some early patents but never developed it to a product. I believe the holder of the patents was Edith Weyde.

The history behind the silver-halide-diffusion

1857 B. Lefévre
1898 R.D. Liesegang
1938 André Rott (Gevaert) B.P. 614,155 / 1939
1941 first commercial product ( “Transargo”, Gevaert)(two sheets)
1941 Edith Weyde (I.G. Farben /Agfa) D.R.P. 887,733 and US Pat. 2,875,052 (noble metals as nuclei)
4 mono-sheet processes (The receptive layer is positioned between the base and the negative; after development the obsolete negative layer is taken off.):
1942 air-reconnaissance film, Agfa
1942 “Veriflex”, Agfa
1947 “Diaversal”, Gevaert
1947(?) “Contargo”, Gevaert
1947 André Rott (Gevaert) US P. 2,665,986 1947 (where he describes silver-halide-diffusion yielding mono- and tri-chromatic positive images)
1947 Edwin H. Land (Polaroid) US P. 2,698,238 (lead sulphide, cadmium, lead and zinc salts as nuclei) this patent can be used as cooking book. In the Neblette, 7ed. Land describes a lot of the problems he had to overcome in precipitating the silver

So you see, both, Edith Weyde from Agfa in Germany and André Rott from Gevaert in Belgium independently reinvented in a way a principle described even in the 19th century.

So both, Agfa and Gevaert, made products out of the ideas from their chemists. But with the exception of this reconnaissaance film only office instant copy materials. Strange enough both companies deem not to have envisaged more potential in the meaning of a consumer camera film. (Circumstances in Europe were discouraging too.)

It needed Edwin Land to do so.

Photo Engineer · Feb 9, 2008

Kodak used the same method (or one similar) in Verifax office copy materials.

Edith Weyde was the major inventor in this area but no one made it practical until Land, but he could not make good emulsions, nor could he coat it very well. He contracted with Kodak to make the emulsion to his specifications and then coat, slit, chop and pack the materials. Eventually he took over using master rolls and finally built his own coating plant. Kodak also made the color peel apart materials.

Land's major plant came on-line at the introduction of SX-70 materials. Before that, he only made tiny amounts of his own product as the company went through the learning curve.

PE

Phillip P. Dimor · Feb 9, 2008

Jim Chinn said:
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.

Elsa Dorfman too.

Ian Leake · Feb 9, 2008

This is the moment that I’ve dreaded for some time. Instant film is the only way of really engaging the subject of a photo in the creative decisions. Fuji doesn’t make 5x4 or 10x8 sheet film and I would be surprised if they or anyone else would want to make the investment necessary to start production (although if someone did then I would continue to buy it).

I’ve a few boxes of 53 and 803 left which I’ll use up, but I can’t see the point of buying any more because now I need to learn a new way to work with people that doesn’t rely on instant film. Buying more Polaroid will only make the transition slower and harder.

Hopefully there’s going to be an upside to this, but I can’t see one at the moment

P.S. I’ve two and a half boxes of Type 59 if anyone in London wants it for free. PM me.

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 9, 2008

Ian Leake said:
This is the moment that Ive dreaded for some time. Instant film is the only way of really engaging the subject of a photo in the creative decisions.

Wetplate shooters consider this to be one of the attractions of processes like ambrotype and tintype. The plate is coated, exposed, and processed on the spot, and when it's done, it's done.

PHOTOTONE · Feb 9, 2008

Ian Leake said:
Fuji doesn’t make 5x4 or 10x8 sheet film and I would be surprised if they or anyone else would want to make the investment necessary to start production (although if someone did then I would continue to buy it).

This is just not a correct statement. Fuji makes an ISO 100 color print material in 4x5 FP10045 which is a 4x5 pack film usable in Polaroid 4x5 pack holders which work with almost all 4x5 cameras. The back slides in under the ground glass, just like a double dark slide, but is quite a bit thicker. Fuji also makes a film holder for the 4x5 material.

Amateur Fuji instant film cameras and film:

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/instant_photo/lineup.html

Professional Fuji instant film products:

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductsInstant.jsp?NavBarId=item778804

You will notice in the professional films category, in addition to the color film they make an ISO 3000 b/w film in the 4x5 size, and in the smaller pack-film size they make a 100 ISO b/w film. So there still are some choices for professional proofing with medium-format and 4x5 cameras.

Now, since they ALREADY MAKE these products in the 2 popular peel-apart pack sizes, how much technology is required to make these available in 8x10??

Ian Leake · Feb 9, 2008

Thanks for the correction. I was only aware of the 3.25 x 4.25 pack film which, quite frankly, is just too small to be very useful.

Fintan · Feb 9, 2008

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

Yup, that sums it up for me. Time Zero and Type 55 binge.

**** it anyway I'm really annoyed/sad/whatever

PHOTOTONE · Feb 9, 2008

Ian Leake said:
Thanks for the correction. I was only aware of the 3.25 x 4.25 pack film which, quite frankly, is just too small to be very useful.

Well, for all the hundreds of thousands of polaroid backs for medium-format cameras it is quite useful.

aldevo · Feb 9, 2008

Photo Engineer said:
Kodak used the same method (or one similar) in Verifax office copy materials.

Edith Weyde was the major inventor in this area but no one made it practical until Land, but he could not make good emulsions, nor could he coat it very well. He contracted with Kodak to make the emulsion to his specifications and then coat, slit, chop and pack the materials. Eventually he took over using master rolls and finally built his own coating plant. Kodak also made the color peel apart materials.

Land's major plant came on-line at the introduction of SX-70 materials. Before that, he only made tiny amounts of his own product as the company went through the learning curve.

PE

Yes. As I've tried to point out Land had a "fascination" with diffusion-transfer (instant) photograhy but the real bread-winner for Polaroid were royalties generated from patents concerning the elimination of glare in sunglasses and automotive headlights. In fact, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the automotive industry, rather than photography per se, enable Polaroid to grow.

I think, on balance, Polaroid is a very misunderstood company. Even now, I've read all sorts of "obituary-esque" article stating how Polaroid ignored the rising tide of digital. That isn't really true. Polaroid recognized the threat of digital very early and actually launched several lines of inexpensive digital cameras using CMOS sensors in the late 1990s. They sold at relatively large (for the time) volumes but had terrible profit margins. Agfa (the largest seller of digital cameras world-wide in 1997 and 1998) did the same.Trouble was, Polaroid eventually got left in the dust by Canon, Kodak, and others. They never made any real money on these cameras to start with and then they couldn't move them at any price. They were on the bleeding edge of digital, actually, but their efforts and execution simply didn't pan out.

I think it would be fair and accurate to say the company was habitually mis-managed from the time its patent revenue started to run dry in the early 80s. Their lawsuit against Kodak was short-sighted and then, of course, there was "Polavision" - which, frankly, crippled the company for the remainder of its independent existence. In fact, I've been told by several photo-enthusiasts who used to work for Polaroid at their Memorial Drive and Main Street facilities in Cambridge that if the SEC had required 10-K cash flow statements a year earlier than they did - "Polavision" would have destroyed Polaroid by the end of 1986.

Photo Engineer · Feb 9, 2008

Polaroid made quite a bit of money from the polaroid glasses used to view 3D movies popular in the mid 20th century. I remember watching "Bwana Devil" using plastic Polaroid lenses. Many other feature films were made using the then-current system which was licensed from Polaroid. Then, it too died out.

PE

PHOTOTONE · Feb 9, 2008

Photo Engineer said:
Polaroid made quite a bit of money from the polaroid glasses used to view 3D movies popular in the mid 20th century. I remember watching "Bwana Devil" using plastic Polaroid lenses. Many other feature films were made using the then-current system which was licensed from Polaroid. Then, it too died out.

PE

A couple of years ago at Union Station in Kansas City in their IWERKS THEATRE, I watched a 3-D IWERKS movie. We had to put on polarized glasses for that, but they were not disposable. We turned them in at the end of the show. So the polarized form of 3-D is still alive.

Black Dog · Feb 9, 2008

To infinity and beyond!

Fintan said:
Yup, that sums it up for me. Time Zero and Type 55 binge.

**** it anyway I'm really annoyed/sad/whatever

Me too....and I've already got a Forte paper stockup to do:munch:. Now where's my Visa card?

Dorothy Blum Cooper · Feb 9, 2008

*sigh*

And to think I was just about to have our ol' SX-70 "modified" to take 600 film. Oh well...it was a nice thought anyway.

PHOTOTONE · Feb 9, 2008

I think some Polaroid films are already gone, such as Type 79. Polaroid doesn't show any on their website, and the vendors that are out, such as Unique Photo haven't had any shipped from Polaroid since November.

Alex Hawley · Feb 9, 2008

Dorothy Blum Cooper said:
*sigh*

And to think I was just about to have our ol' SX-70 "modified" to take 600 film. Oh well...it was a nice thought anyway.

Same here but not no more. Think I'll get a box of Blend film for the SX and leave it at that.

Garry Madlung · Feb 10, 2008

My question is this: Are they stopping production of film because none of their products are profitable or because their consumer products are not profitable? Is it the instant cameras that are dragging down the 4x5s?

Photo Engineer · Feb 10, 2008

Gary;

It really doesn't matter as all of the films themselves are coated on one machine and the rest of the packages are made on a set of other machines depending on whether it is an integral or peel apart. All products would support one another or drag each other down commercially. So, if one vanished all of the others would be hurt.

PE

gr82bart · Feb 10, 2008

Some interesting blog posts on the subject: http://www.bostonherald.com/business/technology/general/view.bg?articleid=1072158&format=comments

Regards, Art.

mabman · Feb 10, 2008

Although this isn't quite the right forum for it, and I am saddened by the impending loss of their film, the inkless business-card-sized printer mentioned at the very end of the article does intrigue me - sort of the antithesis of the current "holding up the wall"-sized-print gallery trend... We'll see if it ever comes to fruition, though.

Daniel Lawton · Feb 11, 2008

Very sad but not suprising I guess. Can't remember the last time I saw a member of the genreal public shooting a polaroid and I would imagine that its use for previewing complex lighting shots has been taken over by digital for most professionals. The niche market it fills for artistic purposes is most likely not enough to sustain it so I'm not banking on any company picking up production.

jasonjoo · Feb 11, 2008

I just purchased a Model 440 Land camera not even a year ago. This is sad news indeed. The instant film format was quite fascinating to me. I know a lot of my friends and family enjoyed it as there was instant gratification (the good kind, not digital!) and they were able to keep the originals.

I've decided to buy 100 sheets of 667 and document each shot (dud or not). This will be my next photo project!

What a bummer!

Philippe-Georges · Feb 11, 2008

Again, this drives us into the arms of the Japanese film makers (noting wrong about that!).
A pity for the American employees who are losing their jobs (again), D***L kills jobs and, perhaps on the long term, people to!

FUJI FP100B or FP100C is the alternative...

Polaroid Discontinued--Boston Globe 02/08/08

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency