Demise of Polaroid Era (NY Times Article)

[beepy]

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/weekinreview/28kimmelman.html">The next few months will end an era that began six decades ago with a contraption called the Model 95 camera.</a></p>

[JDMvW]

<p>It's the 4x5 Type 52 Polaroid that I will miss. Incredible film. Here's my last pack from some years ago when I still had a Polaroid Copy camera setup.</p><div></div>

[joshroot]

<p>I've got to know, what was the special message?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Sorry, it wasn't a tease on my part. It's a little disappointing after all the build up, I'm afraid. It's like the secret message from Annie in the <em>Christmas Story</em> movie. "Be sure to drink your Ovaltine"</p>

<p>At least it's not "You'll shoot your eye out."</p><div></div>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Actually NY Times, you got it wrong again (now that is a surprise!). Digital just cut into its market share......Poor management killed it. </p>

[will_daniel1]

<p>This thread is as good excuse as any to post an image that resulted from an unusual photo experiment in 1970. Kodak made a 3.25 by 4.25 film pack that fit perfectly in Polaroid Land Pack cameras. I believe the model I used was 250. The pack held eight sheets of film, but I can't remember how I changed film for each shot. It could have been a tab that stuck out of the film slot similar to the Polaroid film pack tab. I scanned this just this morning. It's a bit overexposed due to the mismatch between the film's ASA (ISO) and what the camera was expecting. This has a fairly tight grain pattern, so I expect it's Plus-X Pan Professional, but it might have been Tri-X pan professional. Anybody else conduct this experiment?<br>

Will</p><div></div>

[will_daniel1]

<p>UPDATE: As I continued to scan, I realized that I have nine negs. Therefore I was mistaken about the number of sheets in a Kodak film pack. It could have been 10, 12 or 16. Memory fades.</p>

<p>Will</p>

[sam_s6]

<p>I disagree that it was poor management that killed film. Film is dieing because a better technology came. That's been the story in photography since its inception.<br>

Even in the early days of digital when film was still superior in regards to IQ, many photographers went to digital so that they wouldn't have to use film anymore. Digital's work flow is so much faster and easier than film. (No need to send film out to a lab and wait for results; instant feedback; much lower cost - no matter how you slice it; etc...) . And with today's digital sensors, you have to shoot at least 4x5 to get better IQ. Also, lab techs are getting worse and worse. This past year I had to deal with more lab screw ups than what I had to deal with in the last 10 years.<br>

Digital is so much easier to travel with, especially if you're flying. Not all security people are nice about hand searching film and just the hassle of having to keep track of how many times my film has gone through the carry-on x-ray scanners makes it not worth traveling with.<br>

With a $30 memory card I can hold the equivalent of 100 rolls of film on something that fits into my shirt pocket. An $8,000 digital back can shoot 300,000 shots (under 3 cents a shot as apposed to 55 cents for a 35mm shot - that's assuming a FREE 35mm camera which is completely reasonable these days).<br>

I tell you, I'm really happy not to have to deal with film anymore. As far as I'm concerned, film is dead and good riddance.</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>A real shame instant prints are going away. You can't drag a digital camera, a computer and/or a printer everywhere, especially remote areas. Sometimes it's just not doable. I've been in situations where locals in 3rd-world countries have wanted keepsake prints, and Polaroids fill the bill.</p>

<p>Digital photography is convenient for me personally, but some folks will never want or need a digital camera. For the twice-a-year snapshooter, it's really not cost-effective compared to an inexpensive Poloroid, especially when you think about maintaining any kind of printer for very occasional use, and upgrading the camera every couple of years or so.</p>

<p>Those folks who don't do their own printing can have a photo CD made of their digital images, sure, but that's as inconvenient (and public) as having film processed. I agree with the above comment in that digital didn't kill off Polaroid. IMO, while digital certainly cut into their business, there's a market for instant prints that Polaroid management failed to find.</p>

[roy_daines]

<p>I say good riddance.<br>

There just wasn't any logical reason for them to keep producing it. People having fond memories of Polaroid doesn't help them pay the bills.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I disagree. For example, I recently read an article stating that Microsoft is attempting to build an operating system that will charge people per use. When the market pressures start to stranglehold people into unreasonable situations, they'll see the advantage they can have in actually owning the materials, instead of licensing them. </p>

<p>Digital has its advantages. The brazen disregard for the consumer on the part of many computer companies is not one of them. At least Polaroid gave the consumer what they purchased. How'd you like a Polaroid "license" as in, request permission to use what you have, for those pictures? Polaroid film was good stuff. Glad to see that Fuji is still making instant film. </p>

[j_sevigny]

<p>Alas, someone will always come along and try to turn these threads into a digital vs. film debate. Ford vs. Chevy. Watercolors vs. oils. Marble vs. wood. Use what you like. Nobody cares. </p>

[roger krueger]

Instant photography is far from dead, there's still a decent line of Polaroid-compatible materials made by Fuji.

<br><br>

Yeah, they don't have a replacement for exotics like pos-neg, 8x10 or Time-Zero, but most Polaroid backs/bodies you can

get film for now you'll still be able to get film for post-Polaroid.

[DickArnold]

<p>The demise of Polaroid reminds me of Monte Zucker from whom I took a wedding class many years ago. He strongly advocated using Polaroid backs on MF bodies on site to verify work. I had such a back that I used mostly in the studio. He, however, called them Paranoid backs because, despite his talent, he always worried about those pictures he was making that were yet to be developed. No chimping in those days. My wife still uses a Polaroid camera even though I have bought her a point and shoot. As someone said, she wants to see it come out of the camera and does no want to fool with or carry around the small printer she has for the P&S. As long as she can get film she will be happy. </p>

[nomade]

<p>Hey guys, Polaroid's not dead -yet. Read about "<a href="http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2009/01/polaroid-fans-p.html">The impossible project</a>".</p>

<p>You wanna help? Then <a href="http://www.savepolaroid.com/">here's your chance</a>.</p>

<p>Enjoy.</p>

<p> </p>