Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Second childhood or going senile
Page <<first <prev 6 of 7 next>
Sep 28, 2021 13:22:49   #
sb Loc: Florida's East Coast
 
quixdraw wrote:
Clearly, your idea of fun and his are different. And even if you shoot manual, and never chimp, it ain't film, and computer and printer aren't a darkroom. I can come close to the look of film, but not the experience of the film process.


I think that Polaroid never really caught on, not simply because the images were not all that good, but because they underestimated the amount of enjoyment the challenge of setting up the perfect shot and the anticipation of waiting to see your images provided.

Reply
Sep 28, 2021 14:29:50   #
E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
 
sb wrote:
I think that Polaroid never really caught on, not simply because the images were not all that good, but because they underestimated the amount of enjoyment the challenge of setting up the perfect shot and the anticipation of waiting to see your images provided.


"Polaroid never caught on" REALLY?! It was a major industry in and of itself for decades. It was extremely popular amongst family snapshooters. Professionals used it for testing by the ton! I used it as a kid at parties, and during the film era, I used it professionally and frequently, in my studio for lighting and exposure checks when using transparency films. I had the adapter backs for all my gear- medium format, 4x5 and 8x10 including the special processor.

The image quality was surprisingly good. In the 1950s they had a model that resembled a press camera will a full array of f/stop and shutter speed and well as a decent lens. When used in a medium or large format camera with good glass, the image quality was amazing. The 8x10 material incorporated AZO dies- I still have test prints from the 1980s that have rich colours that did not fade.

I used, over the years all their films; the original roll film that yielded deckled edged prints, all the 4x5 types including the PN55 that supplied a great fine gran negative, the colour material and, the high contrast in ultra-fast black and white versions. The SX-70 was fun but not my favourite material. Back in the day, I used it for urgently needed headshots and ID photographs for customers in a hurry.

Marketing-wise, they sold the consumer cameras at a relatively low price and killed you on the film!

Dianne Arbus created much of her fine art work on Polaroid and started a trend of messing around with the chemistry pods for very unique one-of-a-kind results.

Of course, nowadays, whatever is left of it is a niche market, but it was big in its time for a long time. Dr. Land was a genius but he faltered at the end of his run. He insisted on promoting Polaroid movies when the video was emerging as a consumer thing- bad idea!. He got himself kicked upstairs but the company still prospered for several more years. I wonder if he ever thought, "I should have stuck to sunglasses"!?

PS- at one point Kodak came out with an instant camera and films and got sued by Polaroid. Fuji made instant films- I don't know if they still do that. And... old stuff becomes new again. It seems that large format film buffs are clamouring for a newfangled kinda instant film back. SOOTC anyone?

Reply
Sep 28, 2021 14:57:18   #
BebuLamar
 
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
"Polaroid never caught on" REALLY?! It was a major industry in and of itself for decades. It was extremely popular amongst family snapshooters. Professionals used it for testing by the ton! I used it as a kid at parties, and during the film era, I used it professionally and frequently, in my studio for lighting and exposure checks when using transparency films. I had the adapter backs for all my gear- medium format, 4x5 and 8x10 including the special processor.

The image quality was surprisingly good. In the 1950s they had a model that resembled a press camera will a full array of f/stop and shutter speed and well as a decent lens. When used in a medium or large format camera with good glass, the image quality was amazing. The 8x10 material incorporated AZO dies- I still have test prints from the 1980s that have rich colours that did not fade.

I used, over the years all their films; the original roll film that yielded deckled edged prints, all the 4x5 types including the PN55 that supplied a great fine gran negative, the colour material and, the high contrast in ultra-fast black and white versions. The SX-70 was fun but not my favourite material. Back in the day, I used it for urgently needed headshots and ID photographs for customers in a hurry.

Marketing-wise, they sold the consumer cameras at a relatively low price and killed you on the film!

Dianne Arbus created much of her fine art work on Polaroid and started a trend of messing around with the chemistry pods for very unique one-of-a-kind results.

Of course, nowadays, whatever is left of it is a niche market, but it was big in its time for a long time. Dr. Land was a genius but he faltered at the end of his run. He insisted on promoting Polaroid movies when the video was emerging as a consumer thing- bad idea!. He got himself kicked upstairs but the company still prospered for several more years. I wonder if he ever thought, "I should have stuck to sunglasses"!?

PS- at one point Kodak came out with an instant camera and films and got sued by Polaroid. Fuji made instant films- I don't know if they still do that. And... old stuff becomes new again. It seems that large format film buffs are clamouring for a newfangled kinda instant film back. SOOTC anyone?
"Polaroid never caught on" REALLY?! It... (show quote)


Also Polaroid is about the only film that you can actually call revival.

Reply
 
 
Sep 28, 2021 15:37:43   #
robertjerl Loc: Corona, California
 
sb wrote:
I think that Polaroid never really caught on, not simply because the images were not all that good, but because they underestimated the amount of enjoyment the challenge of setting up the perfect shot and the anticipation of waiting to see your images provided.


Polaroid was very popular as a niche thing.
My father got one when they came out and later I had one I used at school.
Lots of pros used Polaroid to take test shots of their lighting etc. One of the professors who taught photography when I took classes did that. He owned 2 or 3 Polaroids. He was teaching at the university because he liked it, he was a commercial product photographer for money - including Ford Motors among his clients.

The coming of digital though pretty much ended the need for Polaroid for testing and everywhere else except as a novelty for most people.
I once read about Nat Geo photographers who still carry a Polaroid to take instant prints to give out to people they are photographing on assignment. The article said they were a great "Ice Breaker" with people.

Reply
Sep 28, 2021 21:00:57   #
JD750 Loc: SoCal
 
sb wrote:
I think that Polaroid never really caught on, not simply because the images were not all that good, but because they underestimated the amount of enjoyment the challenge of setting up the perfect shot and the anticipation of waiting to see your images provided.


Until digital technology evolved, a Polaroid camera was the efficient way to record signals on an oscilloscope. Much faster and more accurate than a sketch. The print would be taped to an engineering notebook with notes below it.

The camera had a Goodman like mount that wound fit over and attrach to the oscilloscope display. Every electronic lab had one or more of them and spare rolls of film in the refrigerator.

Reply
Sep 28, 2021 22:47:16   #
ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio
 
wetreed wrote:
You could not pay me to go back to film. I spent years of my life processing film and then years in the darkroom. I love seeing the pictures right away and knowing if I have to make corrections. I love sitting with my iPad to do my post processing while I watch tv. I love Nikon digital cameras. I am a happy camper in the digital age.


Same here. Nikon Digital camera and ipad.

Reply
Sep 28, 2021 23:13:08   #
JD750 Loc: SoCal
 
I think its a fabulous age now were we have multiple choices to enjoy different technologies and we can pick and choose the ones we like.

Reply
 
 
Sep 29, 2021 07:54:45   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
I'm still enjoying digital. Maybe when I "grow up," I'll go back to film.

Reply
Sep 29, 2021 09:08:14   #
olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida
 
obeone wrote:
I've owned just about every Canon digital camera ever made, but just never found any real pleasure in using them. It's not that they weren't great cameras. It was with each one I found less satisfaction in photography.
It was no longer me creating the image, but the camera doing all the work.
I've gone back to film. The not having instant gratification of knowing if I got the shot and having to wait till I processed the film and made a print has brought back the fun I had when I first started in photography sixty years ago with a Kodak Brown and Kodak Tri-chem packs processed in an old coal bin and printed in a print frame has returned, but now I have a dark room and enlarger that I've brought out of storage.
Photography is fun again. I guess it's a sign of senility - but who cares.
I've owned just about every Canon digital camera e... (show quote)


Good for you....different strokes for different folks! Enjoy the ride!

I'd have fun either way, retired and shoot for fun and own satisfaction....don't care if digital or film, I have and can do both, grew up on film.....

Reply
Sep 29, 2021 10:30:57   #
BebuLamar
 
jerryc41 wrote:
I'm still enjoying digital. Maybe when I "grow up," I'll go back to film.


It would be too late then.

Reply
Sep 29, 2021 14:07:34   #
TreborLow
 
My older brother taught me how to use those Tri Chem Pack in our bathroom with towels over the window! I too, started with a Brownie and during the film era when from 1/2 frame through full frame (Spotmatic was my favorite) through 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 to finally 2 1/4 x 2 3/4. Developed, printed, hot mounted and finally learned to cut mats along the way. Now in digital, using a Pentax K3 and many of my old lenses, extension tubes, bellows and more, but only develop on the computer. My favorite techniques are still burn and dodge! But learning a few more tricks with PS. I had hoped to keep some film equipment, but downsizing ended that dream. Just as well! Happy to have the challenges of digital and not the expense of film!! Every click was about 25 cents then....now only the cost of recharging the battery!
Stay safe,
Bob

Reply
 
 
Sep 29, 2021 21:18:37   #
Cyberkinesis70 Loc: Northern Colorado
 
JD750 wrote:
Except it’s not film. Oops.

Why does it matter? Because it’s a different recording medium. Film records light differently from
digital. Film has what is termed a “soft shoulder” exposure characteristic. It doesn’t blow out highlights instantly like digital. And you never heard of Moire patterns with film because of the random distribution of the crystal grains on film.

I’m not saying it’s better, but I am saying it’s different.

And yes it’s digitized on the back end for printing but just like with audio recording, the front end makes a big difference in the end result.

And one more thing. Are you under the impression that film cameras don’t have auto modes? Just like with digital M mode is a choice with an SLR.
Except it’s not film. Oops. br br Why does it ma... (show quote)
Yeah, I get you there, it is all about the medium. That is why I still have an eight track in my car. Do you know where I can find one of those vinyl disk players from the fifties? I have original recordings I'd love to ruin. Digital recordings don't sound the same, because by observation, it isn't HDR. It is scratchy, crackly, skips with the slightest dust and doesn't have the fidelity of digital. But who cares? It is more fun to screw with the past.

Reply
Sep 29, 2021 21:27:51   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
There's only you and your camera, guess you forgot the film again?

Reply
Sep 29, 2021 21:41:45   #
Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.
 
sb wrote:
I think that Polaroid never really caught on, not simply because the images were not all that good, but because they underestimated the amount of enjoyment the challenge of setting up the perfect shot and the anticipation of waiting to see your images provided.


Polaroid did catch on, in that point and time! Polaroid made a lot of money. Problem is...with technology constantly changing, what seems fantastic today, becomes old tomorrow.

Reply
Sep 30, 2021 07:43:58   #
Chicago312 Loc: Western suburb, Chicago
 
I say good for you. It’s been been decades since I’ve processed and developed film. Certainly would be great to set up a darkroom, but that’s a big project in itself.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 7 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.