The New Polaroid/Impossible

[keenmaster486]

Well, looks like Impossible has absorbed Polaroid once and for all.

Polaroid has launched a new line of "Polaroid Originals" - film for 600, SX-70, Spectra, and 8x10 - and a new camera with its own type of film.

All web traffic to the Impossible Project is now being redirected to the Polaroid website.

I'd just like to take a moment to say: "HA" "HA" "HA" to the Polaroid of ten years ago which made us all mad by abandoning instant film. Where are those people now? Surely not reaping the benefits of pleasing us, the customers. We always get what we want in the end.

Bingo.

Now, wouldn't it'd be nice if they'd bring back packfilm...

 

[twelvetone12]

Did you find andy info on the film? Is it just plain rebranded impossible film or did they improve the formulation?

 

[keenmaster486]

I wondered that myself - if I had to guess I'd say it's currently just rebranded Impossible stuff. But I don't know for sure.

Maybe they will take advantage of Polaroid engineering and archived technology to improve their crappy film.

 

[twelvetone12]

The slogan for the new cam is "perfect imperfection", it kinda killed off my optimism.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

i am so excited

 

[RattyMouse]

I wondered that myself - if I had to guess I'd say it's currently just rebranded Impossible stuff. But I don't know for sure.

Maybe they will take advantage of Polaroid engineering and archived technology to improve their crappy film.

Sounds like a Lomo kind of slogan.

Impossible film is so awful, none of this is interesting. They need to at least match Fuji with their quality. Then things start getting real.

 

[EdSawyer]

there's no 'polaroid engineering' to be had, that they didn't already have. all they acquired recently was the name. there was no 'magic' formulas or info that came with that, and they would be useless even if there was.

Maybe they will take advantage of Polaroid engineering and archived technology to improve their crappy film.

 

[mweintraub]

Did you find andy info on the film? Is it just plain rebranded impossible film or did they improve the formulation?

It's gotta be a new formula, IP has always updated their formula, because the dev times are lower. this is how you can tell the "series" now.

 

[Roger Cole]

Bring back pack film in either 4x5 or quarter plate, make it affordable (somewhat) and of decent quality and I'll be excited. Until then I wish them well but otherwise it's a yawn.

 

[Alan9940]

FWIW, it's my understanding that the 600-series film is, in fact, a new formulation. The others are simply new packaging of the old film stock. Don't know anything about the 8x10 film. Apparently, the 600-series is their most sold line so that line gets updated first.

 

[mweintraub]

FWIW, it's my understanding that the 600-series film is, in fact, a new formulation. The others are simply new packaging of the old film stock. Don't know anything about the 8x10 film. Apparently, the 600-series is their most sold line so that line gets updated first.

I heard the same thing about being the same stock as the last series from a dealer I trust. Who knows.

 

[chdorner]

I heard the same thing about being the same stock as the last series from a dealer I trust. Who knows.

I've heard from a trusted dealer that the colour film is a new emulsion (faster development, colours look more saturated), but the B&W is the same. I'm not sure if that only applies to the 600 film, he didn't mention anything and I didn't ask specifically about it. Although a friend of mine has been using new colour film in his SX-70 and judging from the colours it looks like it's the new emulsion as well.

The colour I-Type film is also the new emulsion, as it's pretty much just the 600 film without the batteries.

 

[rpavich]

I talked to them on Facebook, it's just impossible film with new branding. Same crap. (slightly improved) but the experience isn't anything like the actual Polaroid experience.

 

[mweintraub]

I talked to them on Facebook, it's just impossible film with new branding. Same crap. (slightly improved) but the experience isn't anything like the actual Polaroid experience.

I'm shooting one of the new packs and it's not what it used to be. Maybe not as good as the old stuff, but it's still completely usable.

Excuse the white balance

 

[rpavich]

I'm shooting one of the new packs and it's not what it used to be. Maybe not as good as the old stuff, but it's still completely usable.

Excuse the white balance
View attachment 187860

That's not horrible. A couple of questions if you don't mind:

1.) How long did it take to develop those?
2.) Did you have to keep them from light during development?

 

[mweintraub]

That's not horrible. A couple of questions if you don't mind:

1.) How long did it take to develop those?
2.) Did you have to keep them from light during development?

1) Not sure, but it wasn't as quick as original Polaroid. I took a peek at them at like 15-20 minutes after (The amount it says on the back for development) and it was pretty much the same as you see here.
2) Yes, I held the original film box where the film ejects on the SX-70 and pulled it out and kept it in the box which went into my back pocket. I then put the box inside with the emulsion side down. Maybe over kill, but I wanted to get a baseline.

I wanted to add that I've shot this pack on the SX-70 in harsh sun and it sucked. I'm not sure what's going on. I'll consult the experts.

 

[rpavich]

1) Not sure, but it wasn't as quick as original Polaroid. I took a peek at them at like 15-20 minutes after (The amount it says on the back for development) and it was pretty much the same as you see here.
2) Yes, I held the original film box where the film ejects on the SX-70 and pulled it out and kept it in the box which went into my back pocket. I then put the box inside with the emulsion side down. Maybe over kill, but I wanted to get a baseline.

I wanted to add that I've shot this pack on the SX-70 in harsh sun and it sucked. I'm not sure what's going on. I'll consult the experts.

Yep, not substantially different than the old impossible and nothing like the polaroid experience.

I guess for me, unless someone could re-create that polaroid experience and result, I'll save my cash for negative film.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

If it still needs to be kept in the dark initially, then the Impossible folks haven't got the opacity layer quite correct. When was the SX-70 and integral film introduced? 1972?

Time to track down those old Polaroid employees and offer them a contract job with a nice bonus.

Oh, wait...

 

[bvy]

They look great! A huge improvement over the old Impossible. Thanks for sharing.

 

[GarageBoy]

The samples I've seen on Instagram look much better than previous IP film, even if it's not 100% there

 

[Ces1um]

I bought their onestep 2 and some of their new film. Just arrived today and I've taken three photos so far. I can say it is a much better experience overall. The colours are much more vibrant, the pictures are clearer overall and the blacks are noticeably darker. This is a perfectly usable film now. Very happy with the results over previous iterations of impossible film.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Is it necessary to keep the ejected print in the dark immediately after exposure?

 

[Ces1um]

Is it necessary to keep the ejected print in the dark immediately after exposure?

For colour film, it's still required but it's not sensitive for as long as the impossible film was. They say simply turning it over is fine. I've always just put the photo in my pocket. They're certainly getting the time down. It's probably on par with the original formula when it first came out for speed. When I get back home I'll check the times for colour and black and white and tell you what the times are now. I'm just finding the clarity is much better, the colours are more life like and the blacks really set in as black now. If you've ever used instax, I always found that impossible film looked like it would develop like instax but the final step of the blacks setting in never happened. Now it does. One thing I do find is my new onestep2 camera's light meter doesn't tend to overexpose people like my instax neo 90 does. In that respect it provides better images. The flash also seems to be less yellow as my photos aren't turning out like the 1970's brown/orange bias in film. Now I've only taken 3 photos so far with it, but I was sure none of them would have turned out using impossible's film and my old onestep. These ones did, and quite nicely at that. I'll keep reporting in as I get the opportunity to using it more.

 

[Ces1um]

Is it necessary to keep the ejected print in the dark immediately after exposure?

Sorry for the delay. Colour film requires shielding from light for 6 minutes and 1 minute for black and white. Takes about 10-15 minutes to get the final image in colour and 5-10 minutes for the final image in black and white. Images are visible much sooner than that though.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Is it necessary to keep the ejected print in the dark immediately after exposure?

I don't have examples handy, but, they have made improvements that are really going in the right direction. If the image is not shielded, and is exposed to bright sun light, a image successfully turns out, but it appears overexposed, and low contrast. It seems that indoors, without shielding, the photos are not remarkably different between shielding and not shielding (provided you aren't under floodlights). I am really still dreaming of the day when I will be able to shoot an image with SX-70, and have it appear in my hand in a minute, the way the Polaroid material did....and something tells me that is not too far away!