Why not make integral film for pack film cameras?

[Antonio Marques]

I'm a noob to this whole instant photography business, growing up I only knew Polaroid from books, but that was just me. But I like to think these days I know my Photography well enough. Like everyone I'm not happy that pack film has been discontinued, but I'm puzzled as to why it just can't be replaced by integral film. I mean, what are the fundamental differences between the cameras, that some supplier can't just provide integral film in the size and cartridge format that pack film cameras take?

Moreover, 645 cameras with instant backs waste a lot of pack film area. Is it impossible for Impossible to produce 5.6x4.2 integral film and pack it in a pack film cartridge look-alike compatible with 'polaroid' backs for MF cameras?

I know pack film does provide a negative in addition to the positive image, but beggars can't be choosers and all that.

 

[1L6E6VHF]

Two potential problems, though they may not be insurmountable:

The Integral film unit is a thicker"sandwich" than the peel-apart film/paper pairs (one reason I always preferred the older system), and the rollers in the older cameras may be too close to pass an integral print.

Second, the Polaroid integral image was always in the same orientation as the focused image. Peel-apart focused a reversed image on the film plane, and the dye transfer reversal reversed it back to correct. An SX-70 film exposed in an Automatic 100 would produce a reversed image - unless they used the Kodak/Instax scheme (Polaroid got around the problem with that angle mirror inside me camera).

 

[Photo Engineer]

Add to that the fact that integral materials require that the "water" be trapped in the package and must dry down during the life of the print. Thus, the chemistry must be totally different.

PE

 

[Peter de Groot]

Also the dimensions aredifferent. It is of course pissible to make a machine that can handle the different size but that would be insanely expensive. Costs that don't earn themselve back easily. Impossible will not have the resources for a gamble like that.

 

[Antonio Marques]

Add to that the fact that integral materials require that the "water" be trapped in the package and must dry down during the life of the print. Thus, the chemistry must be totally different.

PE

But other than thickness mentioned by 1L6E6VHF, how does that complicate using integral film in a pack film holder?

But the reasons you all mention are enough for me to think that this just won't happen. It's just not an effortless business opportunity.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The system would have to be redesigned due to the orientation problem mentioned above, or it would have to be peel apart. Many many compromises and changes would have to be made. Basically, the chemistry would most probably have to be radically different.

PE

 

[Antonio Marques]

Oh, you mean the chemistry for hypothetical-integral-film-for-peel-apart-film-cameras would have to be quite different from that of normal integral film. I thought you were saying it would have to be different from peel-apart-film chemistry, which is a given so I wasn't making sense of it.

Yes, my original idea implied they only had to cut and pack the film differently. From the moment that's not practical or enough, it falls apart. I always start off thinking about Instax which is exposed from the back, but Fuji isn't interested in experimentation.

 

[Ron789]

Maybe a way to accomplish this is by combining parts from 2 camera's: take the body, bellows and lens from - for example - a Polaroid Land camera, remove the back. Take an instant camera like a Fuji Instax wide, remove the lens and front part and somehow fix the back to the polaroid camera.
I foresee a few problems though:
- The sensitivity of Instax film is much higher than pack film. The auto-exposure of the Polaroid Land camera will be way off,
- I don't know whether the back of the Instax camera will still function and properly eject the film,
- It will be quite a challenge to mount the 2 half cameras together in such a way that the film is exactly in the right plane.
Doing this with a view camera might be easier; that would at least solve the film sensitivity problem.
A Fuji Instax film back for a 4x5 view camera..... I would go for that!

 

[Prof_Pixel]

A Fuji Instax film back for a 4x5 view camera..... I would go for that!

I'm a little surprised they haven't done this, since we had a 4x5 back for Kodak Instant Film.

 

[Oren Grad]

I'm a little surprised they haven't done this, since we had a 4x5 back for Kodak Instant Film.

The Lomo Belair Instax Wide back has been hacked to fit 4x5 Graflok, but because of the shape of the back this leaves the film plane substantially displaced from the position of the GG. A mild nuisance to work around in slow-paced, tripod-based work, more of a problem if you want to use the contraption hand-held.

An outfit in Taiwan called Rezivot was supposed to be working on a new Instax wide back, but I don't read Chinese and don't know the status of that project.

 

[StoneNYC]

There IS a back that can be adapted to 4x5's that would take the back.

CB-70 is I believe the designation, I ised to own two of them but sold them. They are great and can be adapted to all sorts of cameras.

It takes the SX-70 size packs.

If you wanted to make a bigger Polaroid it would cost too much with too small a market.

 

[EdSawyer]

Fuji should Just restart the fp100c/b line

 

[Ron789]

Found this interesting page, showing how to use integral film in pack film cameras.
http://snapitseeit.com/how-to-load-integral-film-in-a-polaroid-back/
It seems to work fine and is actually very simple!