Polaroid for a teenager

Matus Kalisky · Dec 27, 2012

Hi,

niece of mine (13) who started recently with photography (even took a 1 week photo-course of some kind) would like to try a classical Polaroid. Now - I know that there are different models like SX-70, and different cameras in 600 format - what would be the best choice for her? I have personally never shot polaroid so I do not have any personal experience.

As far as I know there is just the impossible project as a source of film and it is not cheap, but I could get here a few packs to get the taste of it.

Are there any significant differences between the cameras? I would like to find something user friendly-ish if possible ...

horacekenneth · Dec 27, 2012

How about something in the Polaroid 100, 200 series - peel-apart film is currently manufactured by fuji, it's a lot cheaper than the IP, and while it probably has a bigger learning curve than a OneStep point and shoot, she's trying to learn photography, right?

Atari1977 · Dec 27, 2012

If you're looking for a cheaper option, there is always the 100-pack Land Cameras. They can take the cheaper Fuji FP-100C film, it's the peel apart kind of polaroid film. The only negative would be having to convert the camera to take AAA's or AA's, but that's fairly easy to do http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf2FAprpoaM[h=1][/h]

horacekenneth · Dec 27, 2012

^and I think you can buy the correct battery for like $10 on amazon

Matus Kalisky · Dec 27, 2012

Thanks - I will look at the options mentioned. I do realize that on the long run (i.e. Christmas and birthday out of the way) would the 'classical' Polaroid not be feasible financially.

EDIT: Polaroid 250 could indeed be the solution. Let's see what she (and her mother ) thinks ..

AgX · Dec 27, 2012

But the look of an image arising at an integral film can't be beaten by a peel-apart film...

Plus, the true SX-70 is a SLR.

EASmithV · Dec 27, 2012

The pack film ones are cheap and the sx-70 is expensive. If you can get the SX-70, get both!

darkosaric · Dec 27, 2012

Buy him instax mini - cheap and great film, nice cameras also, especially instax mini 50s black.

xya · Dec 27, 2012

or an instax wide, film and camera are as cheap, but photos are real size, not credit card.

imokruok · Dec 27, 2012

Matus Kalisky said:
EDIT: Polaroid 250 could indeed be the solution. Let's see what she (and her mother ) thinks ..

Highly recommend the 250. I have had the pack film cameras in various flavors, and this is the best one - IMO - that won't break the bank. It has the Zeiss viewfinder, which is not found on all models. And it's the only one I'm keeping...the 330 got sold a month ago.

cepwin · Dec 27, 2012

I have to agree to go with a pack camera over the polaroid integral..the film is about $1/exposure vs almost $3 for integral film. Another option is the new fuji instant camera if you want something new. A good source of classic polaroid cameras is http://filmphotographyproject.com/. They have a store which has a range of polaroid cameras from $39 on up (you'll pay more for ones with glass lenses.) They check all the cameras before they sell them so you know it will work and have modified battery compartments in some cases to run with modern batteries (not necessarily the case with the bay.) A new fuji 220 which yields a decent sized image is about $60 on B+H. The only thing I will say is it's a bit large by modern standards..but then again so are the classic polaroids.

horacekenneth · Dec 28, 2012

I know I said pack film cameras but the fuji's mini instax camera (we have the 50s) is awesome and super affordable. The pictures are a great size for what they are. When it comes down to it I prefer the color of the Instax over fuji's 100c peel-apart.
The full-size instax is no more expensive than the mini.

2bits · Dec 28, 2012

I will second the 250, the mod to triple A batteries is simple. Fuji film is fairly priced, not to mention lots of fun!

Matus Kalisky · Dec 28, 2012

Thank you - it is great to hear that the Fuji Instax produces usable results. I was thinking about the model 210 (wide) which produces 6.2x9.9 cm large photos. Anyone has experience with that?

cepwin · Dec 28, 2012

I think the Fuji Instax would be a fine choice. I also agree the larger size would be better...I think the business card images are too small.

StoneNYC · Dec 28, 2012

2 things... One is she is 13... Obviously capable but still 13, so getting her a toxic film like Fuji type 100 that will get all over her hands surely would be less appropriate for such a young girl, and if she is looking for the "Polaroid" look, then the TIP film, though expensive, is still a better option.

Fuji is also upping the price of their films in a month or so, and with a price jump they may also purge some of their lone of lesser selling films, the pack film being one of them.

So TIP is a safer bet with both longevity, safety, and a guarantee she will have fun and keep her interested.

That said I personally prefer pack film, but use both, I have an SX-70, a CB-70 back for multiple cameras, a 600 series camera and a Spectra (the wider film) camera.

Because of the quality the spectra is starting to win me over, and it's available from TIP in their new color protection formula which is some really nice stuff as Polaroid film goes...

Good luck!

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Matus Kalisky · Dec 28, 2012

Stone, your point is taken - indeed she is 'just' 13 and I need to keep that in mind. But what about the safety of the Fuji Instax films? Or are these principally the same as the Fuji type 100?

StoneNYC · Dec 28, 2012

Matus Kalisky said:
Stone, your point is taken - indeed she is 'just' 13 and I need to keep that in mind. But what about the safety of the Fuji Instax films? Or are these principally the same as the Fuji type 100?

Not at all, instax is not really film, as far as I know it's just a camera with a mini-printer in one, so you are getting a print ejected.

Type 100 is an actual chemical process where the inside chemistry develops the negative onto the print paper. And you smear the chemicals between the paper and negative as it is ejected by way of rollers at the exit part of the camera. So when you peel it apart you have to be super carful not to get the chemistry on you or it burns your skin, not bad, but enough that it's probably not good for delicate children's hands. And then there is the time, you have to know the ambient temperature as the paper is literally developing so you have to wait a minute or two based on the outside temperature before you can peel it apart and then wait another 10 minutes for the print to dry fully before touching it.

Conversely the TIP film takes an hour to fully develop, and to an extent has to be kept face down after ejection but the new "color protection" formula is more stable so it's not as critical as the older "cool pack" TIP films. And it's not wet so you can touch it safely.

If she just wants instant pictures, instax is an option, but it's the farthest from any real film. And at that point just get we a digital camera and a mini printer she can just plug the camera into the portable printer and print right from the camera. So it's not really film with instax.

Polaroid will help her with learning about framing the shot, if you get her an SX-70 she will learn a little about focusing as well because you can manually focus those which is nice, can get as close as 1 foot which allows some nice macro style shots with blurred background.

Mine is broken so I would suggest buying a refurbished one (they aren't cheap) OR scour the good wills for one.

I have an empty pack with a good battery, I can load it up with a few bad films and mail it to you if you go that rout, then you can use the pack to test and make sure the camera works and film ejects properly.?

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

StoneNYC · Dec 28, 2012

Above mentioned SX-70 takes TIP(the impossible project PX70 film

Dead Link Removed

Don't get the cool shade film, only the new color protection as the older cool shade tends to fade easy and sometimes the film dried up inside and you get uneven brown patches non exposed film.

But the color protection is nice.

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Prest_400 · Dec 28, 2012

StoneNYC said:
Not at all, instax is not really film, as far as I know it's just a camera with a mini-printer in one, so you are getting a print ejected.

I have an old instax print, taken in 1998 or so and it is an integral film. The frame of the print is textured paper and the back is paper with the (now empty) chemistry pods. Never done instant photography, but have some prints (polaroids, instax and kodak instant).
Unless it has changed, instax should be an integral type instant film. So far, Fuji and TIP are the remaining players of the integral instant film?

...SHould get myself into instant photography someday, it's attractive (except for the wallet) and magic.

StoneNYC · Dec 28, 2012

Prest_400 said:
I have an old instax print, taken in 1998 or so and it is an integral film. The frame of the print is textured paper and the back is paper with the (now empty) chemistry pods. Never done instant photography, but have some prints (polaroids, instax and kodak instant).
Unless it has changed, instax should be an integral type instant film. So far, Fuji and TIP are the remaining players of the integral instant film?

...SHould get myself into instant photography someday, it's attractive (except for the wallet) and magic.

I stand corrected then...

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Prof_Pixel · Dec 28, 2012

Prest_400 said:
I have an old instax print, taken in 1998 or so and it is an integral film. The frame of the print is textured paper and the back is paper with the (now empty) chemistry pods.

Yes, and it is basically the old Kodak Instant Print Film. Kodak had licensed the Asian production to Fuji and Fuji was never sued by Polaroid, so the product continues.

cepwin · Dec 28, 2012

Yes and they produce film for the old Polaroid pack cameras which is peel apart but not integral film for Polaroids ... Sort of ironic as their already producing integral film for their own cameras but not Polaroid's ....at least we have the impossible project.

Prof_Pixel · Dec 28, 2012

cepwin said:
Sort of ironic as their already producing integral film for their own cameras but not Polaroid's .....

The Kodak Instant Film/Fuji Instax Film is shot through a cover sheet on the back of the print and therefor requires 0 or 2 mirrors. The Polaroid integral film (using completely different chemistry) is shot through the front of the print and requires 1 or 3 mirrors.

EASmithV · Dec 28, 2012

Another +1 for the instax system. Sharp, contrasty, beautiful film, the likes of which you won't find from impossible any time soon if ever, and cleaner and easier than pack film. The film is comparatively affordable too.

Polaroid for a teenager

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency