Polaroid In The News....(UK)

[Paul Jenkin]

Not a new story but there's a double-page spread on Polaroid in today's (23/09) "Independent" newspaper in the UK. The article is called "Instant Replay" and is on pages 8 and 9 of the "Life" supplement.

This isn't a medium I in which have any real interest but I know there are many devoted followers who might want to see this......

 

[Shaggysk8]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/the-end-of-polaroid-1791629.html

 

[benjiboy]

It Isn't a medium I have any great interest in either, but Edwin Land was without doubt to my mind, a genius.

 

[DLawson]

More than any other photographic medium, the Polaroid is real. What comes out of the slot with its pretty whirrr is a thing.

Hmm, I must be showing my age. When I think of Polaroid, it is the thing that was tugged out of the slot with that "thruschk" sound. That and the cast-off paper triangles with the serated edges.

Ancient history, but good memories.

 

[BrianShaw]

The dream still lives and the publicity continues, but still no real proof of success in "the revival". Still waiting; still waiting for some sign of hope... but not holding my breath!

 

[ajuk]

I like Polaroid but I I find it hard to understand why the company that invented AF went with focus free crap towards the end, I'm not to keen on my camera and as money is tight I might sell my last box of film.

 

[Martin Reed]

It's also maybe bidding farewell to a style of scientific research that will never be of significance again - Edison knew he was the last of the empirical inventors, and that invention as the 20'th century came in could not be done effectively by small teams. Land's approach to research embodied the same enthusiasm and motivation but taken to a new level, large teams of supremely skilled individuals, but still the genius at the core. And now - we've got computers!

 

[Shaggysk8]

Maybe Steve Jobs is the Last?

 

[Q.G.]

Edison knew he was the last of the empirical inventors, and that invention as the 20'th century came in could not be done effectively by small teams. Land's approach to research embodied the same enthusiasm and motivation but taken to a new level, large teams of supremely skilled individuals, but still the genius at the core. And now - we've got computers!

Off topic a bit but Edison never invented anything.

He was the first of the modern day, corporate 'inventors', and stole other people's inventions wherever he could. Inventions of people with less money and so fewer lawyers to defend their rights.
If that didn't work, and he wanted to get his fingers on whatever it might have been, he might pay some money to the inventor and buy his invention, or the inventor himself, legitimately.
He (and George Eastman, by the way) ran a 'see you in court' type research department.

Land was very different.

 

[Martin Reed]

Off topic a bit but Edison never invented anything.
He was the first of the modern day, corporate 'inventors', and stole other people's inventions wherever he could.....
....Land was very different.

A little unfair to the memory of Edison - he was a heavyweight who didn't pull punches, but Land too used every shot in his locker, as well as being a consummate showman.

Anyone leading their organisation 'from the front' gets interesting when their human errors show through - Land's big one was when he persisted in pushing through the Polaroid 8mm system, a total disaster just as VHS home video was coming in. He never recovered from it & was ousted from his own company.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Martin,

How was a Polaroid 8mm system supposed to work?

Tom

 

[Martin Reed]

It was pretty much the same as the later 35mm Polaroid film system, so something was salvaged from it, an additive lenticular set-up, sort of modern day Autochrome. Chapter & verse here;

Dead Link Removed

 

[Q.G.]

Land's approach to research embodied the same enthusiasm and motivation but taken to a new level, large teams of supremely skilled individuals, but still the genius at the core.

Had to look for it. Found it now: Land's view on science as a group effort.

"There is something warm and appealing and cozy about this picture of the human race marching forward, locked arm in arm and mind to mind; and there are insecure ages in life and insecure people in life to whom this vision of progress by phalanx brings comfort and strength. But i, for one, think this is nonsense socially and nonsense scientifically.
I think human beings in the mass are fun at square dances, exciting to be with in a theatre audience, and thrilling to cheer with at the California-Stanford or Harvard-Yale games. At the same time, i think, whether outside science or within science, there is no such thing as group originality or group creativity or group perspicacity.

I do believe wholeheartedly in the individual capacity for greatness, in one way or another, in almost any healthy human being under the right circumstances; but being part of a group is, in my opinion, generally the wrong circumstance. Profundity and originality are attributes of single, if not singular, minds.
Two minds may sometimes be better than one, provided that each of the two minds is working separately while the two are working together. Yet three tend to become a crowd."
Edwin H. Land addressing the Boston Patent Law Association in 1959.

Very much "the genius at the core" then.

 

[Martin Reed]

Sounds like a recommendation for frontal lobotomy though, doesn't it?

ALL people who get to that position must think like that - Stanley Kubrick always put his collaborators in the position of friend/confidant/employee/serf, used them up & discarded them. As a model it seems to work if the power & ego are all there, but occasionally there might be a revolution.

 

[Q.G.]

Yet there is someting to it.

People who think out of the box can come up with great things, but don't function when pressed to cooperate with people who do not share that way of thinking.
And function even less when pressed to cooperate with equally original thinkers (a recipe for a small scale war, that).

 

[Martin Reed]

I think we're talking evolution here - it's necessary to have mavericks, whether or not they're called genius, to bring about change. I know one or two people who fit the maverick mould, they're not particularly pleasant people, but they get results & respect (sometimes grudgingly).

 

[fotch]

Off topic a bit but Edison never invented anything.

....

Interesting. Do you have proof to back up your statement?

 

[Q.G.]

Name one thing that Edison is supposed to have invented, do a bit of research, and you'll find someone else who did it before, or for, him.
Guaranteed.