Polaroid Discontinued--Boston Globe 02/08/08

[Ian Leake]

A pity for the American employees who are losing their jobs (again), D***L kills jobs and, perhaps on the long term, people to!

This is nonsense. Digital hasn't killed Polaroid - it's been killed by complacency coupled with the company's inability to successfully innovate and change. And that's the fault of its management and employees. Companies which can innovate and change will survive even when there's a major technological shift – for example Harley Davidson and Nokia.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

FUJI FP100B or FP100C is the alternative...

Is there a table somewhere of Polaroid/Fuji equivalents? I presume the above is 4x5" pack film fitting a Polaroid 405 (not 545/545i) back, but it's hard to tell!

Answering my own question:
http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/Film/Instant+Film/Fujifilm/
Seems to be avaialble in 4x5" in both pack and single-sheet form.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think you're misreading that, David. As far as I know, the Fuji 4x5" films come only in pack form, fitting the Polaroid 550 pack film holder and the Fuji PA-45 holder.

 

[Uhner]

I think you're misreading that, David. As far as I know, the Fuji 4x5" films come only in pack form, fitting the Polaroid 550 pack film holder and the Fuji PA-45 holder.

Bummer...

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I think you're misreading that, David. As far as I know, the Fuji 4x5" films come only in pack form, fitting the Polaroid 550 pack film holder and the Fuji PA-45 holder.

The listing (2nd item) also mentions a Polaroid 405 holder - this presumably means Fuji film is available in packs only, for old and new Polaroid holders?

Regards,

David

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

For small and large pack holders. The 405 holder uses 3.25x4.25" pack film, and the 550 holder uses 4x5" pack film. The smaller pack film also works in medium format backs that use the Polaroid 6xx films. I've used the smaller FP-100C pack film on my Bronica S2a with a Bronica Polaroid back and on my Canon New F-1 with an NPC back.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Incidentally, as a proofing medium, many people seem to like FP-100C better than the Polaroid options, so as long as you've got a pack holder, we still can do that in 4x5" and medium format. The Fuji instant film doesn't transfer as well, though, as Type 59, and it doesn't come in 8x10" or 20x24".

 

[Alex Hawley]

For small and large pack holders. The 405 holder uses 3.25x4.25" pack film, and the 550 holder uses 4x5" pack film. The smaller pack film also works in medium format backs that use the Polaroid 6xx films. I've used the smaller FP-100C pack film on my Bronica S2a with a Bronica Polaroid back and on my Canon New F-1 with an NPC back.

Just confirming what David said. The polaroid packfilm holders are the 550 for 4x5, and the 405 for 3.25x4.25. I have both holders and have used Fuji film in both. They work with the standard 4x5 Graflok back. Although some say the holders will fit under the ground glass, I always remove it and use the bar clamps to hold the film pack.

Fuji's numbering system is intuitive:
Two film speeds: FP-100 and FP-3000
Add a "C" for color or a "B" for B&W
Add a "45" for 4x5

So, color packfilm, 100 speed, for the small holder is FP-100C,
B&W film, 100 speed, for the large holder is FP-100B45.

As far as I know, the 3000 speed film is B&W only, not color.

 

[Photo Engineer]

With innovation, Polaroid could still be in business. They apparently stopped all R&D work years ago.

At the time of the lawsuit, Kodak was ready to market an SX-70 like print material in color, with an ISO speed of 3,000. It had dyes with greater stability than any currently on the market in any product. Polaroid could have done the same at some point in time and gained a big jump in analog sales just from these features alone. Kodak was forbidden to do this, of course.

In a sense, by killing the competition, they killed their own initiative, and therefore their product lines languished. As I've said before, every company that sued Kodak and won, has really lost. GAF is another example. And, Kodak has had nothing to do with their demise, they have done it to themselves.

PE

 

[kraker]

I've read through some of the linked articles; sounds like the real thing to me, sources within Polaroid etc. etc.

On the other hand... no press release, no "to be discontinued" notices, nothing I could find on the polariod website (yes,of course I'm hoping this is just a bad case of the press quoting things that were never said).

Still, it sounds like it is really going to happen this time...

I'll keep shooting my 600 film until I can't get it anymore. That'll be a sad day.

 

[imazursky]

The discontinued notices are up on polaroids site.
All of the 4x5 sheet film and Pack film have the discontinued notices.

http://shopus.polaroid.com/shop/pub...ults.cfm?category_code_id=626&subcategory=B04

Im sad!

 

[Ted Harris]

It's real. From a conversation with Polaroid today, they expect to produce all films that have not already been discontinued through the end of this quarter. Most will continue for the ret of the year. One firm statement, "the last film we will discontinue is 669."

There is great sadness within the company too.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

It's real. From a conversation with Polaroid today, . . . . . . One firm statement, "the last film we will discontinue is 669."

There is great sadness within the company too.

At least with 669, they are helping out those who do emulsion lifts, and emulsion transfers. Those are things not yet possible with Fuji FP100C.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

 

[kraker]

It's real.

It is... Also in the Dutch papers today, the announcement of the closure of the Dutch plant. It's real for sure.

(At least I'm glad I spent only EUR 5 on my two 600-type cameras... At least no loss of investment in hardware. Cheaper than half a pack of 600 film...)

"Sad but true."

 

[AgX]

A statement on local employees fearing the Dutch plant going to be closed most probably this year (and the management putting the deadline at last before 2010) was to be read in the local press already last December, though that did not neccessarily imply a production stop in the US too.

 

[Fintan]

There is great sadness within the company too.

I'm sorry too for anyone going to lose their job. If only the film section could stage a management buy-out. I've read that their CEO is ex Best Buy and their Sales Head is ex Electrolux and no doubt they are happier in consumer electronics probaby because they know that best.

I look at Polanoid.net and I'm not convinced the market has shrunk so drastically and if it has, why Polaroid didnt create and equivalent to the whole lomography gentre.

 

[snowblind]

They (correctly) cite digital photography as the reason instant film is no longer commercially viable. The irony in that is that even digital photography is not as instant as Polaroid film -- I don't know of any digital camera that will print the photo right after you shoot it!

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Do an EBAY search for Polaroid digital, and you will find the relics of a failed early entry of Polaroid into digital imaging. Just on an industrial design and ergonomic level, these looked like good products. It was not long after their introduction that the giant electronics companies took over that market. So to agree with what some former Polaroid employees have implied, the management ran the company into the ground. To blame it on something else is to not accept responsibility.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

 

[removed account4]

its too bad someone can't just sell the FILM that is inside P/N55 film.
it is known to be panatomic x, and can be processed without the pod,
in regular developer.


john

 

[Ted Harris]

I don't know of any digital camera that will print the photo right after you shoot it!

Don't count Polaroid out just yet as a company. The Zero Ink technology has a lot of potential http://www.zink.com/.

 

[copake_ham]

its too bad someone can't just sell the FILM that is inside P/N55 film.
it is known to be panatomic x, and can be processed without the pod,
in regular developer.


john

What would that accomplish?

The PURPOSE of Polaroid film packs is to produce INSTANT (m/l) photos.

There's plenty of film alternatives out there - it's the "instant development" that makes it Polaroid.

 

[removed account4]

What would that accomplish?

The PURPOSE of Polaroid film packs is to produce INSTANT (m/l) photos.

There's plenty of film alternatives out there - it's the "instant development" that makes it Polaroid.

wouldn't accomplish much,
except for wishful thinking on my part ...
yes this is true, instant is instant,
but pan-x is beautiful film
its too bad someont won't
keep making IT,
seeing that it was the N in the PN film ...
and polo won't be making it anymore
(and nothing really comes close to it ... )

 

[Dinesh]

John, have you tried using the ignore function? It helps reduce the signal to noise ratio!

 

[JBrunner]

What would that accomplish?

The PURPOSE of Polaroid film packs is to produce INSTANT (m/l) photos.

There's plenty of film alternatives out there - it's the "instant development" that makes it Polaroid.

What would it accomplish?
It means I could continue to shoot it, and no, type 55 "happens" to be instant development, but its not why I, or would bet, most, people shoot 55. I use it because it is a way to get that Panatomic X negative, not because its instant.

There isn't a Panatomic X equivalent, and , sadly, we will be losing that.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, to be clear here, no one has explicit confirmation that Polaroid Type 55 is Panatomic X. I don't even know that. I do know that Kodak was involved in making all instant products happen as Land didn't know how to do it himself, nor did any of his people. So Kodak taught them. And, since I know how Kodak works, I doubt if they used one of their own product formulas for the teaching process and for handing over to a 'competitor'.

Just FYI, Kodak used to do R&D for Ansco as well, when they got stuck on problems. This does not mean that Anscochrome was E1 Ektachrome by any means.

PE