What was the attraction with Polaroid film?

[daveinwilton]

<p>As an aging Xray technologist, I remember some facilities that used Polaroid xray film in the operating rooms. A big advantage in development times to the operating surgeon. Today everything is near instantaneous, but wet tanking operative films in the day, was the height of stress for all.</p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>My very first camera, received as a gift from my father at 9 years old, was a Polaroid Colorpack 80. It was a wonderful way for me as a child to discover the essentials of photography in a low-cost, immediately gratifying format. My love for photography was born with that camera, though I rapidly graduated to more sophisticated formats. Polaroid, like every format, had its place, and met specific needs. For me, it was a wonderful introduction. </p>

[chuck909]

<p>Having sold cameras in the 70s and 80s, Polaroid was never a huge seller to the average photo buff. But come Christmas time especially, we sold a pile of the film. My mother had an SX-70 that I had won as a prize, and come the holidays, she always pulled it out.<br>

Bottom line - except for the pro using the film for test shots, it was mainly a special event camera.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Except for the pros, back then most cameras were special event cameras.

[steve_mareno1]

<p>The attraction was that the image was right here, right now.</p>

<p>And say what you will about the three examples that you posted, while the other two mediums may be technically better, the Polaroid shot has a "presence" that is unmistakeable. It looks "live". I can't put it into words, but it has such a unique feel that it transcends the technical limitations of the medium.</p>

<p>Like all comparison shots, yours aren't fair. The first is carefully composed, well lit, and tightly cropped (but there is the usual digital inability to handle full tonal range, resulting in the closest arm to the lens being blown out). You also used a fast lens that gave selective focus. The second shot is not as well lit, and the exposure and/or developing was also far from being on the money, causing excessive grain on what looks like cheap film. And the last shot was w/ the camera's lousy flash and is very poorly composed. I can prove anything I wish if I make comparison shots like those, and the results will be just as meaningless.</p>