IS EVERYONE EXITED THAT POSITIVE/ NEGATIVE FILM IS BACK ?

[Uhooru]

<p>Not to invalidate anyone's statements, but I've used Polaroid film several times at school. We used it whenever shooting in studio settings or portrait setting even when outside with Medium Format or larger. Before we were using digital, it was THE way to check your lighting setup and exposures. I'm sure there are many people here who used it before? i thought it was pretty common.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

To harp on a bit (sorry ;-) ) : You must then have noticed that Polaroid makes a very poor exposure meter. A very expensive one too. That's why people use exposure meters and cameras - even now that cameras have a little screen on the back - come with exposure meters inside. ;-) Contrast of Polaroid was such that it compared to a spot meter: you could only say with some confidence that the bit on the Polaroid that looked o.k. would be good on film (if you remembered that Polaroid's ISO and your film's ISO were not the same). So if you were in luck that the contrast of the entire scene was flat enough to make it onto the Polaroid relatively intact, you knew it would probably be fine. But not that you would get a good photo!<br>An exposure meter (how much do they cost per measurement?) would tell you too and do that better. And you needed one still. But an exposure meter would not give a little blurry image. And that was the entire attraction. Polaroid sucked as an exposure meter, but it gave you little previews.<br><br>I do concede though that when using flash lights without good, proportional modelling lights it was easy to get a bit scared. You couldn't see the results by just looking at the scene as you would be able to otherwise. But though you had to imagine the end result that exposure meter would still tell you all you needed to know. Then, having a Polaroid could be a confidence booster, yes.

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>I do concede though that when using flash lights without good, proportional modelling lights it was easy to get a bit scared. You couldn't see the results by just looking at the scene as you would be able to otherwise. But though you had to imagine the end result that exposure meter would still tell you all you needed to know. Then, having a Polaroid could be a confidence booster, yes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's pretty much the way of it Q.G. I'm just saying it was pretty standard usage for polaroid, especially b/w. I didn't make this up. Usually when you bought a Hasselblad, you would generally also get a Polaroid back for it. It was a pretty standard procedure. Also, you could get a print off the pulled off negative portion of it. Not the same as a b/w negative film, but interesting though that's now why people were using Polaroid.</p>

[bob_salomon]

Barry, remember that glass plate in the Hasselblads Polaroid back? That was there to modify the film plane as a piece of

glass behind the lens will shift the plane 1/3rd the thickness of the glass. That is why you never want to use a filter behind

the lens. In Hasselblad's case it was to try to get sharper images with Polaroid film as it is impossible for Polaroid film in a

cartridge to lie properly in the film plane. So besides having totally different latitude as regular film it also was commonly

less then critically sharp.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Well... not quite, Barry. Memories are, of course, personal things, but i do not remember that as "standard usage".<br>Polaroid was a good pacifier. And i too had (still have) a clutch of Polaroid backs, because there were and are those people who just demand to have something simple to look at. Polaroid was a social tool, not a technical aid.<br>Polaroid could help in such situations the photographer wasn't sure (and - dare i say it? - that means did not trust himself to know how to use a meter ;-) ), as a confidence booster. But Polaroid was so different from real film that when it was really important to get things perfectly correct, a clip test was performed.<br>So (and this is what this is 'building up to') it is a too big leap from that "confidence booster" concession to "standard usage". Unless you mean that <i>for some</i> it was their standard usage of Polaroid, and not that it was <i>the</i> standard usage of Polaroid in general.

[Uhooru]

<p>Not where I went to school Q.G. it had nothing to do with being a pacifier or providing something simple to look at. It was a tool. Its ok if your experience was different than mine, but where I was it was pretty standard for checking setups, ratios, etc. So, really, quite:)</p>

[tom_rittenhouse1]

<p>In the good old days I remember type 55 being used mostly by artsy photographers.<br>

My own personal favorite Polaroid was the 100 speed b&W, but almost no one else seemed to like it. At a reasonable price I would buy the 4x5 single sheet version of the 100 speed stuff, because I considered shooting it fun.<br>

But as an aside about the people trying to develop this stuff, they are doing it out of love on a shoestring budget. The don't have millions for a development budget. If thousands of people donated money they must have a desire to use the stuff.<br>

Me I would like to see 12x 4x5 film packs available, but only if it would not be more than twice the price of single sheets. Of course after putting out some feelers about that I came to realize that almost no one knows what I was talking about, the last was was sold in the mid-80's.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>If only someone had invented a way to capture and view pictures near instantly that didn't cost anything other than the initial price of the apparatus. Maybe some sort of electronic device that allowed capturing an image and then displaying it on a miniature TV screen? Maybe even storing that image on some sort of electronic medium, a bit like an electronic negative?</p>

<p>Oh wait! I think there might be something like that available already.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

No, there isn't, R.J.<br>The biggest you can go that way (ignoring the also not full frame scanning backs) is not even full frame medium format.<br>I must admit that i like to use (out of convenience) 6x9 or 6x12 formats on roll film behind a large format camera, but even those are far bigger than the available 4x5 cm contraptions.<br><br>And how would that give you a negative to print and a print?

[william_littman1]

<p><br /> <br />it is obvious that from a quantitative point of view the quality of digital suffices yet everyone agrees there is an" artificial" appearance to it by which in HD everything looks a little bit " avatar" <br /> Secondly convenience and what suffices ends up being boring to a certain portion of a market <br /> at some point- consumism will make sure of that whether people actually need a new computer or not they tend to upgrade if only for lack of being motivated by something better. <br /> <br />What Salomon says about instant film as a viable commercial product is from the viewpoint as a justification by someone who marketed products. what he says is true. <br /> But that is also what killed America. <br /> One of my favorite films" Seabiscuit" at one point the lead role says something like" America the great depression- you could get anything you want in any color just as long as it was black. " I as a manufacturer add my two cents " you can get anything you want made in America just as long as you are willing to purchase( quantity) a lot more than you can ever use or ever need. <br /> It is indeed appealing to those who have artistic interests because if only laziness and you can have a negative without having to learn then so be it. <br /> I personal always hated the t55 prints and threw them out and sent all my negs to contact at the lab anyway but it doesn't bother me if people like the print. <br /> <br />Thirdly and again for artistic purposes digital is yes yes yes yes yes = it can be anything but what it cannot be is a first step which is unchangeable . that is a no <br /> so film = yes familiarity= yes a certain quality = no it cant be everything= it can only be within parameter= parchment isn't= leather isn't = wood. <br>

<br /> The metallic aspect of silver or platinum based photography has an unique tonal response which I have no doubt some day could be mimicked by digital presets and then I would have to concede that if some day there is a full frame 4x5 digital back then I could obtain the proportional qualities of realism which I find appealing and if it so happens to be that by then someone has perfected a digital preset which mimics these panchromatic films then I would not think twice. <br>

<br /> With all this said only makes sense if ones artistic effort is sufficiently dedicated to justify the expense. meaning if your pictures are not well composed with digital and its free arguing spending money to not expect a better result is a silly argument. <br>

<br /> But a great violin player can benefit from using a Stradivarius over a modern Japanese reproduction. there are some places where technology reached its peak before and so people go back when they realize sometimes what most believe is progress is actually digression. <br>

<br /> Einstein realized everything is curbed( elliptic )from space to time to progress and therefore one would be wise to differentiate the technologies of consumism and convenience with the technologies to achieve excellence in art. they are not one and the same. and that the future will take us to what has been and to summarize you could say that what killed the American Dream was the nightmare which said one had to dispose of last years car and get " this years car" and at some point you realize things peak and then there is only one way things can go if they are to be different. Politics has this dichotomy.<br>

<br /> In short yes for those who don't mind developing then they sell the same film at 2.00- a sheet <br /> and I don't use 4x5 for everything but I do love it when it is justified. <br /><br /> Jim I think you are right about the evaluation you made. <br>

<br /> In a few days Ill tell you what I think of the business model <br /> Happy New year to all </p>

<p> </p>

[william_littman1]

<p>One more relevant response ; Salomon made two detractive observations in regard to the professionalism of the product.<br>

The issue isn't the product. nobody is going to ask for a refund on a Gaugin or the Mona Lisa because the brushstrokes are not invisible and or seamless.<br>

The issue is the mindset of people who live to research versus what is considered professionalism in business.<br>

Anyone who ever received medical care at a university Hospital by students will confirm That its going to take way longer bumpy raw and unapologetic because they'll tell you that if you want fast to go elsewhere.<br>

All of the esoteric disclosure on what took 7 years is of no interest to professional photographers- it may interest science enthusiasts.- not professional photographers. <br>

Bob is correct that professional photographers want to know what is available - when and how much<br>

On the other hand the current technical difficulties are not an issue.<br>

To know what is available and continuity is.</p>

[bob_salomon]

Which two remarks?

That the ISO varies?

That the developer doesn't spread evenly?

That it isn't usable in the field?

That they are selling prototypes?

[q.g._de_bakker]

The current technical difficulties are indeed very much an issue.<br>Yes, if what the product is capable of is exactly what you are hoping for, it is exactly what you need and you will not complain about it not conforming to your "mindset". But that is begging the question. Leonardo might have asked for a refund if a brush he bought had been such that it did not allow him to do what he wanted to do with it, and which would have been expected of any decent brush.<br>This product is rather limited in what it can be used for. And people who expect and want someone else can't be dismissed that easily as you think as either people who do not have the proper "mindset" nor as people who should be happy to buy a tool that does not work and be happy anyway because it's just a tool still in the making and we have to allow for that. Why would we have to allow for that? Makes no sense. Yes, we know that it is something that is available. We also know what it can, but mostly cannot do. And we do not want it if it can't help us do what we want. It is a very much an issue that it can't.<br>So let them experiment and develop the product and present it when it is a capable product. Before that, they should perform their tests in the privacy of their labs and at their own costs.

[william_littman1]

<p>It is my position that people should indeed support this effort but conditionally. It has been 7 years and he had to go learn how to materialize this when it had been successfully done since 1947.<br>

I'm sure the difficulties are not imaginary but when you go down a path you need to know what<br>

it will take to get to the finish line at the onset- they didn't. still don't entirely.<br>

With this said Type 55 was something you shot on location and developed bk at the studio. that isn't a problem.<br>

The uneven spreading of the development is characteristic of Polaroid process. I'm sure it will improve but appears satisfactory enough to me at present.<br>

The print as I said was only a hint of what the negative was about to me so makes no difference to me .<br>

The only reason these things are disclosed in an alarming manner is as I said again because <br>

the person doing it is used to speaking about research which is what he cares about- not a business person who would have empathy towards what the user needs to hear.</p>

<p>In this case the use is artistic so the issues are not as critical in stage one as you say. they are only critical because as you can see he doesn't understand that if it were a restaurant you keep the cooking in the kitchen and you let the customers enjoy their meal.</p>

<p>So yes there is an obvious unprofessionalism in the lack of separation of these issues but as far as I am concerned its poor presentation but still feel the product should be supported conditional to the enterprise assuming a business posture that users can rely on and they the research bloggy channel has to go backstage or one has to assume the audience will be crash test dummies for cameras and film instead of Pro's.<br>

The product itself at present is in better shape than how they present it. In my opinion that is not the problem.</p>

<p> </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

I think you're quite wrong, William, in thinking that because the use is (supposedly) artistic the issues are not as critical. That would only be so if the artist thinks it artistic to be nonchalant about the way his art turns out. You compare this to cooking: it would be as if a cook thinks he cooks well, is an artist even, because he has no control about how much pepper his pepper mill dispenses.<br>There is a lack of professionalism in presenting a product that is not ready for use by anyone who cares about the result. It is also not o.k. to suggest that thinking this a problem is merely showing that you're not artistic enough, because 'artists' are above that. That's nonsense.<br><br>About the original not being perfect: that's right. It's the reason why even if this present product were as good as the original Polaroid, there would still not be any reason to get excited about it. And as it is, we're still talking about a far from perfect copy of something that wasn't good to begin with. So "excited"? Not in the least. Ready and willing to support the effort? Ditto: not in the least.

[william_littman1]

<p>You of course are entitled to your opinion. perfection is a relative consideration .<br /> I can tell you that I was assistant to Andy Warhol- Helmut Newton- Peter Beard and others and have received responses on this matter directly from most of the most prominent photographers of the 20th century and also made cameras for many of them.<br /> All who agree Polaroid 55 was the choice negative for artistic pursuit despite other negatives being free of error and funky effects. and so that is a perfection in such regard.<br /> I am glad you have such clarity on your choice.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

So how would they have liked it if that Polaroid could not be trusted to give a result that was not "free of error and funky effects"?

[bob_salomon]

Gee, William, I was involved with famous photographers too. Mary Ellen Mark, Richard Avedon, John Sexton, Bruce

Davidson and many others where this was not a topic of conversation, never saw any using 55. Also were involved with

many of the studios shooting our ads as well as commercial studios and they looked at chromes, not Polaroids.

[william_littman1]

<p>ADS= COMMERCIAL.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

William, your line of reasoning, that ARTISTS do not care about how things are and what you can do with them, is rather (and i'll phrase this with considerable restraint) mistaken.

[william_littman1]

<p>No you are correct. Once I have finished my shoot for Vogue I can put on the nerd hat <br>

and be curious about nerdy stuff. But while in photographer mode I'm curious about the subject- not lighting-not cameras-not film . Me and my clients care about how things<br>

work. they work so we can work</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

If you care how things work you are agreeing with me, William. I think you're much too preoccupied with being an ARTIST to understand that caring about how things work is what artists do.<br>Now go finish your shoot for Vogue.

[william_littman1]

<p>Sir no one can do all at the same time concurrently. When a photographer picks up a camera he cares it will work in the sense of facilitating his work a tool . at such time I care it works as it should. same goes for a film. artists are people who care that tools work as they should when they should and that is at the decisive moment which isn't the time to be distracted on why how or how come. yes i have spent a lifetime preoccupied to the extent of having made a camera that requires that you know less how it works because it works as have my peers defending such freedom from nuisance and distraction. and when its all said and done I am interested in discussing how things work but after I have perfected them otherwise why would i lecture instead of correcting the problem. ? The relevant point is before you teach you might want to get into work first?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The relevant point, William, is that the current product appears to be rather all over the place as far as what it does and how it handles is concerned. <i>"people who care that tools work as they should when they should"</i>.<br>So can you, William, get excited about this product?

[william_littman1]

<p>Yes I can get exited about the product because I am a photographer.<br /> before I'm curious in the scientific of a film and the film works well enough to use and that is what photographers care about.<br /> If my niece picks up my iPhone and accidentally takes the best photo ever . then she knows not how the contraption works but for an instant became the best photographer ever. I on the other hand know a little bit about how the phone works and it does interest me but the interest doesn't make me a photographer but a photography enthusiast.<br /> As I said the problem with the effort is the cook doesn't understand the audience who is both interested and can be interesting work and of interest and what interests him is the scientific which of course isn't done and never is.<br /> And for those who want crystal clear negs I know this lab in Miami who has agreed to offer<br /> 20 sheets develop and contact BW or color for 2.00 a sheet.<br /> he's one of the best labs ever . I'm exited about that too.<br /> darkroom and digital is the name.<br /> randi Rosenthal mitchell</p>