Polaroid: more than a glimmer of hope!

[Photo Engineer]

Ron, it is really hard to interpret this as anything other than showing off. . .

Based on the number of PMs and e-mails I got on this subject, I think that my comment was justified and went to answering PMs openly. Since it is the policy of APUG to avoid mention of the contents of PMs, I just went for a straight post.

Sorry if it bothered you. I have no idea why it would, but it aroused great interest in others. I even had comments from ex-Kodakers.

PE

 

[TerryM]

Ron, it is really hard to interpret this as anything other than showing off. . .

This Website is very lucky and fortunate to have Ron contributing his time and expertise (for free)! Ron Mowrey is to APUG what the great Mikhail Gorbachev was to ending Communism: ABSOLUTELY INDISPENSABLE. Everyone should be very grateful to Ron for taking the time to share his vast knowledge.

 

[Ian Grant]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

We are indeed very lucky to have Ron and the other chemists like Ian Grant and Kirk Keyes and probably a few that I'm leaving out here, discussing things that sometimes go over my head, but which are still more accessible in this form than they would be if we non-chemists had to try to work through all the literature and patents ourselves.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Thanks to you all. I'm just one of the guys.

I really appreciate the support, and as David says, we owe a lot to all of the chemists and engineers who contribute here clarifying many of the arcana of analog photography, not just me.

PE

 

[Simon R Galley]

I am most certainly with Mr.Goldfarb...

Simon ( Not A Chemist ) ILFORD photo / HARMAN Technology Limited

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

I do not understand how my comments are being interpretted as saying that Ron isn't valuable to the site; he and I are friends who have corresponded a great deal.

But what you said Ron, is so full of technobabble that I doubt anyone but a PhD would understand it. As someone who has taken college chemistry classes, I understood nary a word.

It is one thing to be technical.

It is quite another thing to name-drop and technobabble. Try to keep us lay folk in mind if you are seeking to pass on knowledge

 

[JBrunner]

I do not understand how my comments are being interpretted as saying that Ron isn't valuable to the site; he and I are friends who have corresponded a great deal.

But what you said Ron, is so full of technobabble that I doubt anyone but a PhD would understand it. As someone who has taken college chemistry classes, I understood nary a word.

It is one thing to be technical.

It is quite another thing to name-drop and technobabble. Try to keep us lay folk in mind if you are seeking to pass on knowledge

I would hope that he keeps everyone in mind. If you don't get it, ask for a clarification or move on.

 

[MattKing]

As long as Ron is speaking "chemical engineer", I am appreciative but over my head.

Now when he gets into Science Fiction.....

Ron, have you visited the science fiction museum attached to the Experience Music Project in Seattle?

Matt

 

[Akki14]

I didn't find the statement that complex and I only have basic high school chemistry knowledge. I understand that solvents dry quicker so I can see why they'd be needed in an integral film environment to start/stop development and other reactions. But it wasn't something that immediately came to mind when this topic was mentioned until Ron pointed it out.

 

[AgX]

Well, `technobabble´ is a relative term.

As relative as `the mean member´ here at Apug would be.
Definitely people here have different technical backgrounds as well different interest within analogue photography. (I myself consider me a tech guy.) But one can see that members here try to explain things to others who seemingly lack some understanding, while at the same time they themselves can feel welcomed with their own needs for explanation. I consider Apug a society of give and take.
Yes, some threads are clearly `high´ tech, and enigmatic to the non-initiated. Otheres turn that way with time. But the same time there are others definitely aimed at the beginner to the subject. And especially PE initiated some threads on basics.

So, let’s go on babbling…

 

[AgX]

I didn't find the statement that complex and I only have basic high school chemistry knowledge. I understand that solvents dry quicker so I can see why they'd be needed in an integral film environment to start/stop development and other reactions. But it wasn't something that immediately came to mind when this topic was mentioned until Ron pointed it out.

Akki,

The thing with that solvent/aqueous coating would be in first instance that some layers of special materials are needed in an integral film concept. (Though that team of impossibility may show us wrong.) And those materials may not fit in that concept of aqueous coating. A concept which is standard for film manufacture.

 

[Photo Engineer]

As long as Ron is speaking "chemical engineer", I am appreciative but over my head.

Now when he gets into Science Fiction.....

Ron, have you visited the science fiction museum attached to the Experience Music Project in Seattle?

Matt

Matt;

No, sorry I have not. I do collect books and have met some of the famous authors and actors. One prominent author is one of my closest friends. And, most KRL people were Trekkers.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Guys;

I bring up solvent coating because:

1. It uses a different type of machine.
2. It often uses flammable solvents which must be disposed of properly during drying.
3. It cannot usually coat multiple layers easily.

I hope this clarifies some items. The post was directed towards directly answering some of the questions in PMs and e-mails in this open forum, it was not meant to confound anyone.

PE

 

[Film-Niko]

Wonderful news!
Best luck to all who are running this project!

 

[tac]

If this was already post, sorry; I didn't see it:

The New York Times:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/polaroid-fans-new-film-old-cameras/?hp

 

[tessar]

Return of Polaroid film?

I ran across an interesting website from a group that is taking some definite steps to resurrecting Polaroid film:
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=835594

 

[Christopher Walrath]

These threads ought to be merged. Two other threads already running on this subject. Very interesting news thoguh and well worth watching.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yet another thread merged.

 

[analogsnob]

I add my voice to those wishing the project success!

The process is discussed in detail in "Photographic Emulsions Recent Developments" by Ronald W James; Noyes Data Corporation, 1973. The chemistry involved is very clever and well above my pay grade. In its own way as artful as the product itself.

Carry on gentlemen!

 

[Distagon]

Great news, indeed.
Keep on going Polaroid engineers and Ilford!!

 

[PHOTOTONE]

As far as the manufacturing process goes. Fuji makes integral film for its own line of instant cameras. These films are not compatible with the Polaroid cameras.

 

[Curt]

I'd like to see a P/N in 5x7 and a new holder.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

From the BJP online:
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=836687

B&W instant film! (Maybe)

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

I hope they can find a source of *color* emulsion material. At this point in the game, it probably comes down to Kodak, Ferrania, or Lucky. I don't know if Kodak's prior lawsuit loss to Polaroid will preclude them from this.

They don't tend to be cooperative with other manufacturers that much anyway.

Then both Ferrania and Lucky are probably not advanced enough. This may well be impossible when it comes to color materials, which are far more useful and a far bigger volume of consumption anyway.