What's up with the impossible project?

[Cholentpot]

Maybe some teeny tiny hope that packfilm might come back?

What's the worst, any new film news is good news to me even if I will never buy or use it. Go Polaroid!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
What's the worst ...

Impossible film in Instax mini-90 format.

 

[Ed Sawyer]

just a bunch of attention-whoring for the "likes" or whatever. Ridiculous. They should just let us know when they start making products that aren't overpriced shit. Then maybe we'll pay attention.

 

[bvy]

IP responded to a post on social media somewhere and all but said that it would NOT be a peel apart replacement.

 

[faberryman]

just a bunch of attention-whoring for the "likes" or whatever. Ridiculous. They should just let us know when they start making products that aren't overpriced shit. Then maybe we'll pay attention.

Based on reports of quality control issues, and given the cost, I haven't tried any of their products. Instead of constantly coming out with new products, they need to produced a product as reliable as Polaroid was. I never had any issues with any of the SX70 film I bought. You bought it; it worked.

 

[Ces1um]

I dunno. IP's stuff works-ish. Only issue really I find with the stuff is the colours aren't very vibrant and weird yellow smears at the top of the photo. Also the old cameras out there were never great cameras. Plastic lenses aren't going to give you detail. No manual control of shutter speed or aperture means you're going to get under/overexposed shots. Flashes that always fire means lit up subjects and dark backgrounds. Even Polaroid acknowledged that one recommending you put your subjects up against an actual background so everything would be lit. Even the venerable sx70 slr had no manual controls other than focus. The cameras using IP film are 40 yrs old, were never taken seriously and likely anybody shooting IP film hasn't taken the time to get their Polaroid serviced. Sure IP's film should be better than it is but you can't blame everything on their film. A lot is due to the sh*tty cameras you used the stuff in.

 

[bvy]

I dunno. IP's stuff works-ish. Only issue really I find with the stuff is the colours aren't very vibrant and weird yellow smears at the top of the photo. Also the old cameras out there were never great cameras. Plastic lenses aren't going to give you detail. No manual control of shutter speed or aperture means you're going to get under/overexposed shots. Flashes that always fire means lit up subjects and dark backgrounds. Even Polaroid acknowledged that one recommending you put your subjects up against an actual background so everything would be lit. Even the venerable sx70 slr had no manual controls other than focus. The cameras using IP film are 40 yrs old, were never taken seriously and likely anybody shooting IP film hasn't taken the time to get their Polaroid serviced. Sure IP's film should be better than it is but you can't blame everything on their film. A lot is due to the sh*tty cameras you used the stuff in.

These are all good points. If you want to see what the film is really capable of shoot 8x10. And do some bracketing. The film has very little latitude.

 

[ozphoto]

I found it amazing that the person who wrote the story had no idea what the "ski goggles" comment meant: "The ski goggles thing I’m not sure about." Polaroid started out patenting polarisers that reduced (headlight) glare and in 1939 made goggles & glasses for the US Army & Navy. Obviously, it is relaying its story from humble beginnings to the creation of their film that is known so well, and that their innovation desires will continue into the future. (Sheesh, research anyone??)

Whilst all the camera systems they mentioned in their popups seem to point towards their instant, rather than peel apart versions, 1977 also saw The Reporter camera that used the type 80 or 100 film. Any chance they're looking to produce these again?

Whatever happens, I'll be very interested to see what takes place on September 13 - more film products makes me happy regardless of who produces it!!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... Also the old cameras out there were never great cameras. Plastic lenses aren't going to give you detail. No manual control of shutter speed or aperture means you're going to get under/overexposed shots.
...

One notable exception:

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Polaroid_600/600_SE

 

[Cholentpot]

IP responded to a post on social media somewhere and all but said that it would NOT be a peel apart replacement.

Bah!

 

[Ces1um]

One notable exception:

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Polaroid_600/600_SE

I was not aware of this one. I would definitely grant this one an exception!

speaking of 40 year old cameras, my sx-70 rainbow stripe decided on the weekend that it no longer liked it's external Q flash. In a puff of electrical smell it permanently ended it's relationship with the flash. This was right after it ejected a film and the top of the photo of said film ruptured spilling blue chemical all over the back of the photo and on the rollers. Sigh.

 

[Cholentpot]

I was not aware of this one. I would definitely grant this one an exception!

speaking of 40 year old cameras, my sx-70 rainbow stripe decided on the weekend that it no longer liked it's external Q flash. In a puff of electrical smell it permanently ended it's relationship with the flash. This was right after it ejected a film and the top of the photo of said film ruptured spilling blue chemical all over the back of the photo and on the rollers. Sigh.

My Land 104 is still kicking. No film for it however...

 

[aleckurgan]

The cameras using IP film are 40 yrs old, were never taken seriously and likely anybody shooting IP film hasn't taken the time to get their Polaroid serviced. Sure IP's film should be better than it is but you can't blame everything on their film. A lot is due to the sh*tty cameras you used the stuff in.

If I am not mistaken one of IP's slogans was about bringing back integral film to feed those crappy old cameras, millions of them. And from my POV IP films suit Polaroid cameras perfectly.

 

[Ces1um]

If I am not mistaken one of IP's slogans was about bringing back integral film to feed those crappy old cameras, millions of them. And from my POV IP films suit Polaroid cameras perfectly.

You may be on to something there. Why make a good film if the cameras were never good in the first place? I really want impossible film (and a new camera) to work like Fuji instax does for quality. Just don't think we'll get that. It was fun playing with this camera but once I run out of film I won't be using it again.

 

[Ed Sawyer]

Polaroid had some good cameras. Back in the rollfilm era, the 95 and descendants were pretty decent. Some of the packfilm cameras were excellent (180,185, 195). Even the original SX70 had a nice 4-element glass lens and adjustable exposure. The cameras weren't holding them back. Sure they made crappy cheap ones at some points too but there were decent ones, and quite a few of them.

 

[vdonovan]

Polaroid had some good cameras. Back in the rollfilm era, the 95 and descendants were pretty decent. Some of the packfilm cameras were excellent (180,185, 195). Even the original SX70 had a nice 4-element glass lens and adjustable exposure. The cameras weren't holding them back. Sure they made crappy cheap ones at some points too but there were decent ones, and quite a few of them.

Interestingly, one of Edwin Land's conflicts with Polaroid's board of directors was about camera quality. Land thought that the SX-70 was all anyone would ever need. If customers couldn't afford it, they should save their money until they could. After Land was booted from Polaroid (as a result of the Polavision debacle, as well as thin profits from the SX-70), the company introduced the cheap plastic 600 series, which spread like wildfire.

 

[Ces1um]

Polaroid had some good cameras. Back in the rollfilm era, the 95 and descendants were pretty decent. Some of the packfilm cameras were excellent (180,185, 195). Even the original SX70 had a nice 4-element glass lens and adjustable exposure. The cameras weren't holding them back. Sure they made crappy cheap ones at some points too but there were decent ones, and quite a few of them.

Just to reframe things here- the original topic of this post was pertaining to the impossible project. It got off on a tangent about polaroids but at this point in the conversation we were talking mostly about Polaroid cameras that you could still get new film for. That's basically the sx70 and all the plastic crappy cheap ones. i should have been clearer- my mistake.

 

[nbagno]

Leaked?

 

[aleckurgan]

So, that's it? Just another rebrand?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

If all it is is a re-brand with no improvement to the film, I'll be highly disappointed.

Also, if that's indeed the case, why would Impossible think we would or should be excited about this?

"Polaroid Originals" is it? That's a high standard they have yet to meet. Maybe, like career politicians, they'll just claim something to be so and think we're stupid enough to believe it.

 

[Cholentpot]

If all it is is a re-brand with no improvement to the film, I'll be highly disappointed.

Also, if that's indeed the case, why would Impossible think we would or should be excited about this?

"Polaroid Originals" is it? That's a high standard they have yet to meet. Maybe, like career politicians, they'll just claim something to be so and think we're stupid enough to believe it.

If this is real...

When peel apart got ruled out I figured it would be a re-brand of some sort. Low effort.

 

[EdSawyer]

Let's be clear: he wasn't booted, he resigned on his own. SX-70 itself was fine as far as profits but their bigger financial issues came from polavision and gradual shrinkage of the company, including write-downs for manufacturing facilities and machinery that end up being surplus/under-used. They made cheaper cameras than the sx-70 under land's tenure, it all didn't suddenly happen when he left (1982). And despite whatever popularity the 600 had, they never really regained their position in the market that they had earlier.

Interestingly, one of Edwin Land's conflicts with Polaroid's board of directors was about camera quality. Land thought that the SX-70 was all anyone would ever need. If customers couldn't afford it, they should save their money until they could. After Land was booted from Polaroid (as a result of the Polavision debacle, as well as thin profits from the SX-70), the company introduced the cheap plastic 600 series, which spread like wildfire.

 

[EdSawyer]

I would have been surprised if it was anything OTHER than just rebrand/marketeering. That is what they are good at. Why would anyone be excited about that? Good question. In the current era of the narcissistic selfie crowd and so-called social media, there's endless attention-whoring going on, and clearly IP are not above stooping to that level.

If all it is is a re-brand with no improvement to the film, I'll be highly disappointed.

Also, if that's indeed the case, why would Impossible think we would or should be excited about this?

"Polaroid Originals" is it? That's a high standard they have yet to meet. Maybe, like career politicians, they'll just claim something to be so and think we're stupid enough to believe it.

 

[Truzi]

I figured it is a rebrand - but I know people who are more likely to try it only because it has the Polaroid name on it. Go figure.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

In 2017, "Impossible Project" perfectly captures what a startup company's attempt to make affordable, top-quality instant film is. IMPOSSIBLE. The proof has been in the overpriced, inedible pudding. While there's a chance the product might become a bit less expensive and slightly less effective as an emetic, it will continue to be overpriced and inedible.

Practically every cell phone on the planet includes an instant imaging device. The images they capture can be made to look like real, i.e. high-quality, early Polaroid© images, ones taken before digital's market dominance stressed even the real Polaroid© so much its own product quality declined.

Reality sucks, but it's real.