• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

The Surprising Fate of Film

We should also differ between relative growth/decline for different sections of film to themselves and absolute number (film area).
 
I have never understood the hype about instant film. What is so great about having only one single picture that you cannot replicate without further quality loss (if we can speak about quality in this regard at all...) and which has essentially no long term keeping properties? Hang them on a wall and they will be faded before the decade has ended. It would be great if this new generation of polaroid fans could be converted to more serious forms of film photography.
 
I've never understood the hype about permanency and reproducibility
 
I'd say that the fact that it's a unique object and a first generation image is the essence of what makes instant photography interesting. In some respects the ability to make multiple prints from a negative isn't much different than printing multiple inkjet copies of a digi image.

That it's ephemeral is unfortunate, but that's a fact of life too, most things are temporary on one time scale or another.
I have some 30 YO SX-70 prints and some B&W Polaroid that do show their age, but have held up ok, certainly no worse than some of my 30 YO Ektachrome. I've not tried any of the Impossible Project stuff though.
 
I would never give or sell someone something that was not archival. That is supposed to be a given, and for a lot of good reasons. I had a friend that shared a painting studio with and she got sued for a sizable amount of money because a piece she sold fell apart in short order due to poor workmanship and non archival materials.The buyer won the case too.

Yes, all things are impermanent (not most), but if something is sold as "art" it is expected that the maker will be using the very best of archival materials, or it needs to be clearly stated that they had no interest in that aspect.

Instant film has a lot of major flaws. Usually poor image quality, no negative, so what you get is all you'll ever get, wacky colours that very quickly fade, poor ISO selection, poor permanency, and you have to use plastic cameras w/ limited features or have a camera that can take a special back. The cost per image is astronomical for what you get too. Great concept, poor product. Why doesn't someone reintroduce printing out papers? As much as I dislike the kickstarter business model, I might be interested in that.
 
Last edited:
From this thread it really seems that some have not truly given INSTAX film a fair shot. It's far far better than most instant films of the past. Of course, it's still a one shot medium but you cant accuse this film of having poor color or stability.
 
Interestingly Instant was deemed to be the first one to go, given the convenient character of digital. But I agree that after the digital novelty worn out:
When I pull the SX70 it draws curiosity and conversation. The materials (IP) are what they are, but it's fine. It's another tool.

I rather oppose the view of Motion Picture film living really good times... If a few years ago Kodak would have stabilized instead of using it as a cash cow, it may be better than now and perhaps not having the 2014 slump that almost killed it. MP was really robust, I recall seeing plenty of discussion around here that it was profitable when most of other Kodak's ventures were not.

Still film... E6 is not in a very good situation. B&W and C41 may be another matter. Ilford did fine with B&W and reported growth.
 
bdial said:
...In some respects the ability to make multiple prints from a negative isn't much different than printing multiple inkjet copies of a digi image.
Click to expand...
Works produced under an enlarger are far different than printing via inkjet. Enlarged prints each normally entail unique handiwork. Two enlarged prints of the same image are unlikely to be "pixel perfect" copies.
 

I didn´t know, sorry! My experience refers to polaroid shots made in the 90s.
 
pdeeh said:
I've never understood the hype about permanency and reproducibility
Click to expand...

I understand both ways. But I'll admit I like copying lumen prints onto film so they are "permanent", though I've never cried much when old or instant color photos faded.
 
Oh, BTW: have you noticed Super-8 is nowadays located on Kodak website in consumer products?

There are even "Super 8 Tips - Making a movie, camera to subject distance, composition, lighting, common problems, storage and more..." with tips such as

"COMMON PROBLEMS:

If film is black--absolutely no pictures:

* lens cover not removed"

http://www.kodak.com/ek/us/en/Consumer/Products/Super8/default.htm

Yeah, Kodak motion picture film could have been stronger now had there not been those critical errors in how the business was done before 2012, but even then I myself rather have this new enthusiastic post-chapter 11 Kodak than the earlier way too institutionalized business behemoth.
 
Ohh, this'll heat up the discussion here... you know, on the Kodak's Super 8 Tips page there is this part:

"EXISTING-LIGHT MOVIES INDOORS
In order to film subjects in the greatest possible variety of existing-light situations, you need a high-speed film and a camera that takes full advantage of dim existing lighting.

Under most circumstances, medium-speed Type A films are best for making indoor movies with movie lights or other supplementary light sources. Films such as KODACHROME 40 Movie Film (Type A) and KODAK EKTACHROME 40 Movie Film (Type A) fall into this category."

Could it be? Could it be?



Disclaimer: They just copied the tips from an old file. Nothing to speculate here. Move along, citizen!
 
kuparikettu said:
Read here: http://www.pdnonline.com/features/The-Surprising-Fate-of-Film-16660.shtml
...
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting that. I have to wonder if instant film would be enjoying a revival if Polaroid had continued making instant cameras and film. I think not. Sometimes something has to collapse before something better can arise like a Phoenix from the ashes.



Only in 2004 did I become interested in Polaroid, during the final years of their film and camera production. Until then, my focus (so to speak) was on the highest quality negatives my 35mm and medium format equipment could produce.

I still care about that and I especially desire archival quality, but Polaroid and Fuji instant films have an equal, if different, appeal.

It is precisely because the instant photo is a unique image that I like it. It is the sole capture of a scene in a singular moment. You can copy it by any number of means, but those aren't the same thing; they don't have the same provenance.

For all my tack sharp photos made on Kodak Tech Pan with Zeiss lenses, I have equal love for the softer pastel photos I've made in Yosemite with my SX-70 (some enlarged to 8x10).

That they're not as archival as a negative or glass plate is a shame.
 
Last edited:

a few things
- the instant hardcopy photo has a bit of 'magic' appeal
- it's one form of photography which both creates a print and can compete with the immediate gratification nature of digital
 
The comment in the article about Fuji makes me wonder how long until I need to do a mad dash order of 100 rolls of some Fuji 135 and 120 offering like I did with FP-100C :/
 
My 8 year old and 21 year old kids both have an instax mini. They both love it.
 
Slixtiesix said:
the hype about instant film
Click to expand...

Precisely because it is an ephemeral, one-off print. It's special in a way that giving the only one to a friend is an event while giving 100 friends a mass-produced inkjet print is meaningless.

Also in more rarified amateur circles it gives the halo of professional photography to your efforts because studio photographers commonly used polaroids to check lighting before blowing hundreds of dollars on chromes.

And hipsters
 
I've got a lot of Kodak Instant prints from my work on the system in the late 1970s and they are still in great shape. Instax prints are even better now.
 
IMHO Super 8 is about equivalent to digital movies. The film "Carol" was shot on Super 16 and received several Oscar nominations as well as winning some Golden Globes.
 

New55 has a very nice negative with which I can make an infinite number of prints. The accompanying positive goes right in the bin, as it's PDU!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register