POLAROID : Reply From HARMAN technology Limited

Photo Engineer · Feb 26, 2008

It would be easier for Fuji to make it than for Ilford to make it IMHO. However, lacking the different sizes of equipment, it might be very difficult for Fuji to offer a full range without building or at least modifying existing equipment. The cutting and chopping of standard films and papers is a straightforward task, but making the pods, masks and recievers is difficult and requires specialized equipment including an assembly machine for each size and each product format.

Think about every Polaroid product you know of and then consider how different each is in every single component. Each of these must be manufactured and then assembled into one pack per product size, shape and configuration. The machine that makes SX-70 integral cannot make the other products as a simple example, as these units are totally sealed never to be peeled apart!

I have taken apart every product Polaroid makes and considered the assembly procedures and have done the same with the now vanished Kodak products including some you have never seen. I have seen the equpment and the methods of assembly and it is not a trivial task.

PE

Alex Hawley · Feb 26, 2008

HerrBremerhaven said:
My own guess on this is that Fuji are probably happy to soon be the only peel apart film producer. It would surprise me if they made anything else, though maybe something to fit all those consumer instant cameras (600 Instant, not peel apart). They could also try selling more Instax cameras and film in North America, which are products they already make.

Gordon, somewhere in these recent Polaroid threads, there was a link to a Japanese photo supply website, where there were many more Fuji instant film offerings. There was a 600-type integral film along with 400 speed color and B&W pack films. These haven't been available yet from USA retailers, and I surmise, not available in Europe either. Fuji has also been producing ready-load sheet film products for many years. The packaging of the ready-load sheets is quite similar to the 4x5 Polaroid sheet films. As I understand it, all that is really lacking is the development mechanism and the positive sheet component. So, substiture a paper negative material, add the chemical pod and positive sheet and they would have it.

It appears likely that Ilford would have to take over the operation of the existing Polaroid plants to produce the products. Otherwise they would have to be inventing the wheel again which would be a lengthy process as Ron says.

Now this is very speculative, but bear with me for a moment. Is it possible that years ago, Ilford may have developed their own instant film technology, then shelved it because of the infamous Kodak/Polaroid lawsuit? Or, perhaps even more speculative, maybe they once produced some instant film products for the Defence Ministry? The Defence (please pardon the British spelling) linkage between the US and UK has been quite strong for many years and such collaborations have occurred.

keithwms · Feb 26, 2008

Given the patent / license relationship that was apparently already in place between Fuji and Polaroid, and Fuji's success with their instant-film products, I too do not quite see why Ilford would want a piece of this action.

However, if Fuji shows no interest in pos/neg instant films, then l would petition Ilford to consider giving us something like panatomic X (or whatever that magic stuff is in type 55/665!) in medium and large formats.

I understand the desire that many have to see manipulatable colour film back on the shelves; that strikes me as something Fuji would entertain if there is interest for it in Asia. I don't know whether that's the case. No clue.

HerrBremerhaven · Feb 26, 2008

The Fuji Instax is physically the same final print size as TimeZero (SX70) or Polaroid 600. However, the ISO is 800, and I don't know the physical pack dimensions. Fuji also makes an Instax Mini, and ACE Instant films, also integral, and ISO 800. I have never seen anything that suggests these Instant integral films would work in a Polaroid camera body. Since Fuji already make Instax cameras that can use their films, I don't see much incentive for them to produce something for the many Polaroid cameras out there. However, it might not take too much modification to change the pack construction, though there is still the matter of different ISO.

http://fujifilm.jp/personal/film/instant/index.html

Fuji already make Neopan in 4x5, which is a B/W film. What incentive might they have to alter a Quickload packet enough to make an instant film?

I think if Ilford already had something, then they would not be checking on licensing from Polaroid. The packet construction is one aspect, but then again Ilford don't make anything the would work on Kodak Readyload, nor Fuji Quickload . . . otherwise I would be buying it.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photographyy

HerrBremerhaven · Feb 26, 2008

Just a quick correction/update: Fuji Instax Mini and their related cameras, are actually very similar to the Polaroid Mio.

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Polaroid

However, this seems to be the rare exception. Anyway, I think likely more people on APUG are interested in either peel apart Fuji Instant, or some promise of a future type 55 like film.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

okto · Feb 27, 2008

HerrBremerhaven said:
Just a quick correction/update: Fuji Instax Mini and their related cameras, are actually very similar to the Polaroid Mio.

http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Polaroid

Instax Mini is actually EXACTLY the same: the Polaroid Mio was wholly licensed from Fuji.

Alex Hawley · Feb 27, 2008

HerrBremerhaven said:
I think if Ilford already had something, then they would not be checking on licensing from Polaroid.

Gordon, I think they would be considered imprudent if they did not check the licensing aspect. The outcome of that lawsuit had far-reaching consequences in that area and the Court's decision still stands in effect. Basically, Kodak considered instant film technology to be public domain since they had produced Polaroid's film for many years. But Dr. Land differed. Both sides spent millions defending their positions and the judgment went Land's way. Therefore, best to err in the cautious direction.

Photo Engineer · Feb 27, 2008

Alex;

To be sure of their freedom, Kodak invented a new type of camera that used 2 mirrors (polaroid used 1), the image was viewed from the opposite side than SX-70, it used a black goo, and used a direct reversal emulsion instead of a negative emulsion. Everything was new and patentable, but the basic concept of a sealed container that developed a picture using a goo was, in the opinion of the judge, completely in Polaroids favor. Three different firms of attorneys agreed that Kodak was free of Polaroids claims, but that just shows you what they know.

It got Polaroid a big reward which appears to have helped them not at all, and it forced Kodak from instant into digital. Now this may be viewed by all as ambivalent, but it kept Kodak in business longer than otherwise.

PE

copake_ham · Feb 27, 2008

Suffice to say that Land was Polaroid and once Land was gone....

Alex Hawley · Feb 27, 2008

Photo Engineer said:
It got Polaroid a big reward which appears to have helped them not at all, and it forced Kodak from instant into digital. Now this may be viewed by all as ambivalent, but it kept Kodak in business longer than otherwise.

Ron, I fully agree, it hurt both companies hard, and the industry as a whole.

Philippe-Georges · Feb 28, 2008

Why bothering about buying a production plant in the U.S. if there is one fully operational, and of a lesser size, nearby in Enschede/Holland?
Crossing the North sea (by Chunnel) is much easier than the Atlantic ocean...

Philippe

PHOTOTONE · Feb 28, 2008

leicam5 said:
Why bothering about buying a production plant in the U.S. if there is one fully operational, and of a lesser size, nearby in Enschede/Holland?
Crossing the North sea (by Chunnel) is much easier than the Atlantic ocean...

Philippe

I think all the peel-apart films such as type 55, were made in plants in the USA, and the Holland plant produces the integral films. Totally different products, requiring totally different machines and procedures.

Photo Engineer · Feb 28, 2008

A coating machine has to be in pefect alignment. Moving one does nothing good for this. Realignment is hugely expensive. Imagine a track nearly 1000 M long that has to be laser straight. Threading it with film or paper is a major expense all in itself, and then you have to make several waste runs to check it out.

That plus moving costs have to be added to the total cost of the machine and to the project. One roll of film or paper is not cheap. I would say that from a dead start, at least one year would pass and a cost of at least 5 full master rolls of wasted film would go by before production could start.

PE

Ian Grant · Feb 28, 2008

One thing Ilford/Harman wouldn't want is another coating machine, so that'll go for scrap who ever makes any Polaroid films.

Ian

Photo Engineer · Feb 28, 2008

And, there no chance that the existing Ilford equipment can make Polaroid peel apart film.

PE

tim_walls · Feb 28, 2008

Ilford moved their coating machine from the south of England to the north...

(Don't get me wrong, if Ilford take on Polaroid I'll eat my hat - just saying a coating line *can* be moved, if there's a will.)

Andy K · Feb 28, 2008

tim_walls said:
Ilford moved their coating machine from the south of England to the north...

(Don't get me wrong, if Ilford take on Polaroid I'll eat my hat - just saying a coating line *can* be moved, if there's a will.)

I used to live in Wickford, Essex, and remember the old Ilford factory on the other side of the A127 on the outskirts of Basildon.

Paul. · Feb 28, 2008

Hang about lads, Simon says Ilford are looking at the possibilities and are talking to Poloroid and here you are pontificating on why it wont work. Why in the name of God do you not just wait and see, it is Ilfords money and their decision.
There are too many pessamistic I told you so mechants here whom seem out to try and impress people with how much they know about how difficult it is to do anything. If Ilford had thought like that they would never of reserected themselves, give them some credit for knowing what they are doing.

Simon, wether or not this venture is a goer you have my thanks for even looking at it. If it gets off the ground you will have my support. The day you anounce what instant films you will make I shall go buy a poloroid back for the Hassy.

Regards Paul.

Ian Grant · Feb 28, 2008

Well I never said it wouldn't work . . . . . . . . . . .

catem · Mar 1, 2008

Just to add my thanks to Ilford for positive thinking about Polaroid. It would be a great shame and a great cultural loss if it was allowed to disappear.
And yes, it makes people like me - who never got around to using it in a big way or a particularly creative way - feel that you can't put off what you always meant to have a go at. But time is the essence and you can't do everything at once. Diversity is something we need to value and hang on to for all we're worth. It's important to feel that the various mediums we use won't necessarily disappear overnight, and we will have time to use them in our own way when the time is right for us, not because we only have three months left in which to do it.

Photo Engineer · Mar 1, 2008

Ian Grant said:
Well I never said it wouldn't work . . . . . . . . . . .

I'm with you Ian. I never said it would not work.

I merely pointed out the difficulties and expense to remind people that there has to be an ROI.

PE

AgX · Mar 1, 2008

leicam5 said:
Why bothering about buying a production plant in the U.S. if there is one fully operational, and of a lesser size, nearby in Enschede/Holland?
Crossing the North sea (by Chunnel) is much easier than the Atlantic ocean...

Philippe

I think in Enschede only converting, pod making, assembling and packaging takes place, no coating.

AgX · Mar 8, 2008

In this discussion about companies and licensing and machinery I would like to add that Agfa is seemingly already employing these silversalt- and dye-transfer pocesses in their high security ID-card business…

markbb · Mar 9, 2008

AgX said:
I think in Enschede only converting, pod making, assembling and packaging takes place, no coating.

I would have thought that this is where the USP of Polaroid is created? surely coating film and paper is more generic?

hka · Mar 10, 2008

AgX said:
I think in Enschede only converting, pod making, assembling and packaging takes place, no coating.

That's true.

POLAROID : Reply From HARMAN technology Limited

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency