Would you consider Polaroid Medium format?

EASmithV · Mar 19, 2012

Would you consider Polaroid or Instax medium format?

I know a lot of people consider the instant 4x5 materials as Large format, does that mean that film made by an SX-70 or an instax is medium format?

Trask · Mar 19, 2012

Well, not to duck the question, but does it really matter? OK, maybe if you're entering a contest for "large format" practitioners, then you'd want a definition. Otherwise, it's really a matter of semantics. What we now call medium format used to be called "miniature" many decades ago. But, my two cents...Polaroid 665 gave negatives that are 3 1/4 inches by 4 1/4 inches. That's considerably more than what is "normally" considered medium format these days (2 1/4 by 2 1/4, 2 1/4 by 3 1/4) -- probably about 180% of the latter. So you'd be justified, I think, in calling it large format if you wish. Plus you have to file the negs individually as do large format users --it's not roll film.

paul ewins · Mar 20, 2012

To be honest, now that the film and neg combo is no longer available, Polaroid is just Polaroid (except that is Fuji). The distinction made between 35mm, MF and LF was all about the ability to make various sized enlargements. A polaroid is an artefact in itself, not an intermediate step to a print, so it really has nothing to do with the classifications of negative formats.

xya · Mar 20, 2012

maybe we'll have the negatives back soon. the project is quite advanced.

http://new55project.blogspot.fr/

let's hope for the best.

maarten m · Mar 20, 2012

IMPOSSIBLE is doing a good job to re-introduce "instant film" that fits the well-known polaroid camera's.
myself, i use the PX70-film in my SX-70 folder.

Dead Link Removed

BrianShaw · Mar 20, 2012

It is completely in a class of its own.

keithwms · Mar 20, 2012

Yep. I call it instant film.

Ian Grant · Mar 20, 2012

Unless you're getting a 5x4 negative (or larger) it's just a print and rather format less, as others have said just an instant print.

Ian

nickrapak · Mar 20, 2012

Admittedly never having shot LF, I would have considered the negative from 665 to be on the MF-LF border. Since it was for all intents and purposes a sheet film, that would have crossed it over to a large format classification for me. I do not count any other Polaroid film as any "format", since you can't enlarge by projection.

ChristopherCoy · Mar 20, 2012

maarten m said:
IMPOSSIBLE is doing a good job to re-introduce "instant film" that fits the well-known polaroid camera's.
myself, i use the PX70-film in my SX-70 folder.

Dead Link Removed

Is this why the SX-70 is still commanding high prices on eBay? I didn't realize there was film still available for it!!

maarten m · Mar 20, 2012

i guess, those people putting them on ebay (or buying them from) probably know of the project.
still i think prices are way too high there, so look arround your local 2nd hand sources, i found much better prices there.
the impossible film is still quite experimental, so don't expect results like the instax.
don't forget IMPOSSIBLE had to start completely from scratch and re-invent the whole chemistry.

Trask · Mar 20, 2012

paul ewins said:
To be honest, now that the film and neg combo is no longer available, Polaroid is just Polaroid (except that is Fuji). The distinction made between 35mm, MF and LF was all about the ability to make various sized enlargements. A polaroid is an artefact in itself, not an intermediate step to a print, so it really has nothing to do with the classifications of negative formats.

I've got maybe 15 packs of 665 in my fridge, so for me, for the moment, Polaroid remains an option. I'm trying to save if for subjects I think are worthy.

BrianL · Mar 22, 2012

I always considered the pack film size to be LF as it is sheet film and when used in a pack film camera it is significantly larger than most MF cameras as well.

Also, from a handling perspective, though Polaroid advertised it as a handheld, my expereince over the decades has been if not tripod mounted, there was at almost any exposure speed the camera shake is evident even using a cable release.

aterimagery · Jul 5, 2012

Well, I know that if I clear a Fuji FP-100C or B negative and want to scan it, I certainly can't use a transmissive scanner that only takes 120 or 35mm. For this reason, I think the cheapest thing I could get is an Epson V700.

So from the perspective of buying scanners for the negatives, it might as well be large format. Only exception might be if you use a polaroid back for a hasselblad or something, then clear the negative and trim it. Then it's 6x6cm 120 format.

Bill Burk · Jul 5, 2012

ChristopherCoy said:
Is this why the SX-70 is still commanding high prices on eBay? I didn't realize there was film still available for it!!

Haa, yes the Impossible Project has been making film for SX-70 long enough that my first batch already expired and dried out on me. Have to use it while it's fresh.

Would you consider Polaroid Medium format?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency