The first good thing to happen to the world of images in years.

Bruce wrote:
"§ñühwö£f" wrote:
ok bub...I have both an art degree and experience with polaroid
instamatics of various size shape & model


Polaroid instamatics, eh? No such thing, "bub".

Uh oh! The jig is up!

Instamatic was a Kodak product using conventional film in a sealed
plastic cartridge. Perhaps you were thinking of Kodamatic, which was
Kodak's instant picture camera. It competed with Polaroid only until
the inevitable lawsuit forced Kodak to discontinue it.

Perhaps, m'lud, perhaps.

--
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
www.friendsofanimals.org |www.snuhwolf.9f.com|
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\

thanatoid writes:

bugbear wrote in
:

thanatoid wrote:


OTOH, the SX-70 was a brilliant development and a tool
embraced not only by insurance adjusters, but by many
artists. It does not seem many people in these photography
groups have much of a concept of art.

troll!

BugBear

People like you are SO depressing. Why don't you just go and
kill yourself and be done with it.

Troll confirmed!

David Dyer-Bennet wrote in
:

thanatoid writes:

bugbear wrote in
:

thanatoid wrote:


OTOH, the SX-70 was a brilliant development and a tool
embraced not only by insurance adjusters, but by many
artists. It does not seem many people in these photography
groups have much of a concept of art.

troll!

BugBear

People like you are SO depressing. Why don't you just go and
kill yourself and be done with it.

Troll confirmed!

Moron confirmed.



--
"Well, Steve, I think there's more than one way of looking at
it. I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbor named
Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found
out that you had already stolen it."
Bill Gates to Steve Jobs, around 1983

thanatoid wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote in
thanatoid writes:
bugbear wrote in
thanatoid wrote:

OTOH, the SX-70 was a brilliant development and a tool
embraced not only by insurance adjusters, but by many
artists. It does not seem many people in these photography
groups have much of a concept of art.

troll!

BugBear

People like you are SO depressing. Why don't you just go and
kill yourself and be done with it.

Troll confirmed!

Moron confirmed.

Says the troll.
We all know: Trolls lie, worse than politicans before the election.

Now go back to your bridge and wait below it for unwary travellers.

-Wolfgang

Originally Posted by Pete A

On 2011-10-26 13:36:31 +0100, Martin Brown said:

On 26/10/2011 13:13, dadiOH wrote:
thanatoid wrote:
As some of you may know, I hate cell phones and smart phones,
and Steve Jobs, digital cameras, and everything else in this
stinking world.

Something I did NOT hate was the original Polaroid SX-70. The
camera was a work of GENIUS, and EVERY photo it took was a
masterpiece - I have never seen anything like it - you could
give it to blind person and the photos s/he took would be as
great as anything else. This was due to the film it used -
presumably, an adaptation of Polaroid's pro large-format
products.

But, of course, Polaroid decided we did not deserve to have such
beauty in our lives, and changed the film, ostensibly to
increase the ASA. Well, that it did, giving us more grain (OK,
that's basic), but also totally destroying the "softness" and
the incredibly beautiful colors the original film stock had.

Well, I have just seen something amazing - it may not be new to
many of you, but it is new to me.

There is a little app for the STUPID iPHONE which produces
basically what the original SX-70 did. I am BLOWN AWAY.

Random example::

http://phoofy.tumblr.com

and info:

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://e...g/wiki/Instagr
am

I did not read that until just now, but it actually SAYS:

"Instagram, in an homage to both the Kodak Instamatic and
Polaroid cameras, confines photos into a square shape. This is
in contrast to the 3:2 aspect ratio normally used by the iOS
device cameras."

It even has an option to add a border similar to the one the
Polaroid prints had!

What do you think?

I think Polaroid was handy to check light levels and direction. Nothing
else.

It was very handy to ensure that if push came to shove you actually had
a photographic record of some unrepeatable event. You could even get
instant monochrome negative stock emulsion for the older cameras and
the resulting large negs were potentially quite serviceable in
extremis. It was a bit tetchy about being kept at the right temperature
for development in the field. I think the original Polaroid system was
more like 5x4 aspect ratio but my memory could be playing tricks here.

Heck, I made extensive use of B&W Polaroids to record the screens of
oscilloscopes, other instrument CRT displays, and laboratory
experiments. In those days work was great fun :-) I suppose getting
paid to produce those pictures qualifies me as a professional
photographer, ha ha.

[...]

One of the most important used of Polaroid prints was to
a) Check the effects of
and
b) Check the setup of
complex professional studio lighting and subject orientation, the latter (b) to save time in getting similar effects in future.