Lady Gaga: "Creative Director" of Polaroid Printer in a Purse

<p>Lady Gaga designed a Polaroid product which is a whole separate printer to lug around?</p>

<p>http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gadgets/01/06/ces.gaga.polaroid/index.html?hpt=C2</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Why not? Whatever it takes to become a relevant player to Polaroid's modern target demographics.</p>

<p>It's a different way of saying "This is't your Dad's Oldsmobile" (a message which failed miserably), or using Led Zeppelin to reinvent the Cadillac brand (which succeeded wildly); they may yet start a new trend.</p>

Killer idea. Love it. For me, I'm very curious about the printer. Have been researching small printers to

make prints to give to people I shoot on the street on the spot. Though the output is great, the 4x6

Epsons and Selphys are still too big to want to lug around.

<p>Certainly more compelling than Nikon & Ashton Kutcher.<br>

I applaud Polaroid for their daring.</p>

<p>I like Lady GaGa; I always liked the Polaroid Corp. Glad they can get together. The 'digital+instant' idea seems good too. People are usually happy to be photographed if they get a print immediately.</p>

<p>Ha, I was just reading this article and going to link it into this forum...I am going to echo Les about Lady Gaga and Polaroid. I think she is so adventurous, it's always interesting to hear/see what she will come up with next. She's smart, talented and creative~ always forward-moving. Well played by both Polaroid and LG.</p>

<p>I want one that I can hook to my camera, take to events and sell 4x6 prints as I walk around snapping pix of people. Anything like that exist yet or am I dreaming? I mean completely mobile...not plugged into a wall.</p>

 

<p>In previous years, I thought about doing that at a renaissance faire, and thought about doing a court painter gag using the HP 375 printer which had a battery. But as far as I can tell, the current A646 does not have a battery in it. Note, the HP 375 did not have water fast inks, which might be a problem.</p>

<p>I can't tell if the current Epson PictureMate has a battery in it.</p>

<p>The HiTouch P110S can do what you want, and is probably more rugged than the consumer inkjets. However, getting only 60 prints for a battery is kind of on the low side IMHO.<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/723649-REG/HiTi_Hi_Touch_Imaging_Tech_P110S_PocketStudio_Photo_Printer.html</p>

<p>There is the current Polaroid printer if you are printing from a photo with a bluetooth adapter like a cell phone:<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/576298-REG/Polaroid_673353_CZA_10011_POGO_Instant_Mobile.html</p>

<p>The Canon Selphy CP800 has an optional battery that would do what you want:<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/731639-REG/Canon_4350B001_SELPHY_CP800_Compact_Photo.html</p>

<p>If you wanted to go old school, get a Polaroid pack camera like the ProPack or Reporter and use the Fuji instant 3.25x4.25" film (FP-100C, FP-100B, FP-3000B) that is still available. Or step up to a 4x5 body with the FP-100C45 film</p>

>>> Anything like that exist yet or am I dreaming?

 

Sort of... I own an older Epson PictureMate, a new Epson PictureMate Charm, and a Canon Selphy CP800. They take

batteries and support a Bluetooth dongle. But even the Selphy CP800, the smallest of the three, is still bulky

to carry around. The print quality of the two Epsons is outstanding, The Selphy being a dys-sub with fewer "inks," just good.

 

I shoot tons of street portraits, usually strangers I encounter on the street, and if I expect to see them again, will carry a 4x6 print in my

bag to give them on a future encounter. I've given away several hundred prints in that manner and always have a dozen or two in my bag. Being able to

give them a print on the spot would be great.

 

There's also a Polaroid Pogo which makes 2x3 prints (a little small for me) at much lower quality using their Zinc paper (which their

new printer uses) and has been out for a few years. Looking forward to more details on their newer printer. Apparently it uses 3x4 inch paper that's second generation and hopefully better quality. That might be OK for my use if the print quality is decent. Though with no black "ink," B&W rendering will probably so-so, like the Selphy.

<p>Could they hire her to bring back B&W films in 220? I like the long rolls.</p>

I second Scott's motion - 'twould be a brilliant idea! :-)

<p>Sounds good to me. I might actually start printing some of my digital pix.</p>

<p>If her involvement generates enough profitable interest in Polaroid the hipsters will be baffled. They won't know whether to abandon the faux-faded/color-shifted "Polaroid look" because everyone's doing it, or to decide Gaga is now one of them. (I say "faux" because most of my Polaroids dating back to the '60s still look damned good. It's my older prints from color negs that look like the current Hipstamatic stuff.)</p>

<p>BTW, is it just me, or is Gaga starting to look more and more like Pris from <em>Blade Runner</em>? Not that it's a bad thing.</p>

<p>Lex: Umm, I suspect you know this, but others many not. The Polaroid of 2011 is only thinly linked to the corporation that Edwin H. Land created. Here in Massachusetts there have been some strong feelings about the whole sorry saga. I noticed earlier this year that the former headquarters in Waltham, MA recently had been defaced, and it appeared from the highway that it was people complaining about the sad state of affairs the company is in. I ran into a bitter former employee that had had some health issues from working on the chemicals in the film, and when the company went bankrupt, she lost what few health benefits she had.<br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_Corporation</p>

<p>Yup, I'm referring to <em>Polaroid</em> only in the generic sense of the contemporary perception of retro-aesthetics. I just forgot to use my ironic font.</p>

<p>As for the original Polaroid corporation, some of the blame for their financial collapse can be attributed to short-sighted management failing to heed the hipper marketing folks who tried to clue the company in regarding trends. And some of it was just unfortunate timing.</p>

<p>To their credit, Polaroid's website did begin offering tips for alternative and unconventional use of their instant film/print products early in the 2000s, and tried to tie into the publicity boost prompted by the OutKast/Andre 3K song "Hey Ya!" But I'm not sure anyone could have predicted the faux-retro craze in digital processing that embraced "Polaroid" as a nostalgic aesthetic rather than as a product manufactured by any particular company. If the actual corporation had been able to hang on a few years longer they might have enjoyed at least a limited resurgence in the instant film/print market. At least they'd have the ability to produce a stable product, something that defied The Impossible Project's early efforts (I haven't kept up with TIP lately and don't know whether they've resolved that issue or embraced unstable prints as a desirable thing).</p>

<p>Ideally - at least my concept of "ideal" - a viable Polaroid camera today would produce an instant print exactly as it had done for decades. And at the same time it would create a high resolution JPEG identical to the print, warts and all. But the problem with that concept is that the in-camera JPEG wouldn't be able to duplicate any manipulations done to the print after it left the camera. Since shaking, squeezing and molesting the print was part of the aesthetic, it still comes down to scanning the prints to duplicate the final result to get a digital copy.</p>

<p>Scott, the only way I can see Gaga influencing anyone to use 220 is if it was tied into a Holga kit. (Where's that facepalm font when I need it...?)</p>

<p>Polaroid's downfall really started with Polavision. It was easy to see home videotaping coming but they went with a significantly inferior technology. Nothing was the same after that, it was a huge investment for them.<br>

<br />I saw the new product this last week, it looks pretty neat. I think there is a real market for quick on-location prints whether at events, on the street, business functions, whatever.</p>

<p>Lex:<br>

Well shaking at least could be duplicated if the camera had Wii/android/iphone type motion sensors built in. It may already have these sensors, it is just nobody has thought to use them to modify an image such that it would replicate the processing. I imagine the other effects could also be duplicated, but I don't see it as commercially viable.</p>

<p>While I have never shot a roll of Polaroid film in my life, I have contemplated every so often buying a ProPack, since it has the visual look of the older press cameras without having to go the full route of 4x5 shots.</p>

<p>Jeff:<br>

Yes, I believe there is a whole untapped market for on-location prints, though I see several different markets. One is just the event photographer taking pictures of you at an event, without having to transmit the pictures to the base station and print them up. There the big thing is reliability, fixed costs, and speed of printing. Another is social networking where you are with a group of friends and take snapshots -- this is where the Polaroid zinc printer seems to fit in. Another is creative uses like Lex mentions. I do renaissance faires and at one point, I thought about doing a court artist gig with an HP portable printer, so I imagine there might be people wanting to do that.</p>