Re: PIC: Theyree Backk: Poloroid resurrects Instant Film Cameras

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paul Furman, Jan 13, 2010.

  1. Paul Furman

    Paul Furman Guest

    Michael wrote:
    > On 2010-01-12 18:37:09 -0500,
    > -spam.invalid (JLA) said:
    >
    >> Imagine you are an iconic camera company, and in your glory days your
    >> film was an essential for both fashion photographers and fashionable
    >> party-goers. You were so popular that your product’s name became
    >> synonymous with instant pictures.
    >>
    >> Then the world turned digital, and you found yourself as washed up as
    >> the rock stars you once documented. You struggled to make yourself
    >> relevant, and failed, patronizing your loyal fans by offering them
    >> crappy product after crappy product. What do you do? You turn back
    >> the clock.
    >>
    >> The company is, of course, Polaroid, and it is set to launch a new
    >> range of film cameras. After its hideous attempts to combine a
    >> digital camera and a printer in a single (huge) box, the company will
    >> step back in time and make cameras which use Polaroid 1000 film. The
    >> range is called PIC-1000, and the devices resemble the Polaroids of
    >> yesteryear.
    >>
    >> This makes perfect sense. The Polaroid’s USP was instant prints. The
    >> odd quality of those prints were what made it an icon. And if film
    >> handles it so well, why even bother changing to digital which is, in
    >> this case, clearly inferior? Sure, Polaroid will never be the mass
    >> market success it once was, but there’s a good, retro niche for weird
    >> analog cameras, currently occupied by Lomo.
    >>
    >> The cameras should go on sale this year. They will have flash, red-eye
    >> reduction and even a self timer, and come in wood-effect or blobby
    >> silver. Price TBA.
    >>
    >> View the attachments for this post at:
    >> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=34255339#34255339

    >
    > Some years back (a dozen or more) Polaroid had a great ad: a baseball
    > fan finds himself next to Henry Aaron in the front row at a major league
    > game and has someone take his picture with Mr. Aaron. Then Henry Aaron
    > signs the border of the SX70 (or Spectra) print. Only Polaroid could do
    > that. Digital could not, conventional film could not. The problem was,
    > when you thought about it, only in the extraordinarily unlikely event
    > that you would find yourself in that or similar situation would the
    > Polaroid become indispensible. Hardly a reason to buy one and the film
    > and truck it all around.


    I had an SX-70 when I was a kid, I would get another if they had it but
    not another model like in that link :-( The SX-70 was pretty dang cool
    how it folded up & had that faux leather with the proud plastic white
    Shell :)

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Jan 13, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul Furman

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:31:53 -0800, Paul Furman <>
    wrote:

    >Michael wrote:
    >> On 2010-01-12 18:37:09 -0500,
    >> -spam.invalid (JLA) said:
    >>
    >>> Imagine you are an iconic camera company, and in your glory days your
    >>> film was an essential for both fashion photographers and fashionable
    >>> party-goers. You were so popular that your product’s name became
    >>> synonymous with instant pictures.
    >>>
    >>> Then the world turned digital, and you found yourself as washed up as
    >>> the rock stars you once documented. You struggled to make yourself
    >>> relevant, and failed, patronizing your loyal fans by offering them
    >>> crappy product after crappy product. What do you do? You turn back
    >>> the clock.
    >>>
    >>> The company is, of course, Polaroid, and it is set to launch a new
    >>> range of film cameras. After its hideous attempts to combine a
    >>> digital camera and a printer in a single (huge) box, the company will
    >>> step back in time and make cameras which use Polaroid 1000 film. The
    >>> range is called PIC-1000, and the devices resemble the Polaroids of
    >>> yesteryear.
    >>>
    >>> This makes perfect sense. The Polaroid’s USP was instant prints. The
    >>> odd quality of those prints were what made it an icon. And if film
    >>> handles it so well, why even bother changing to digital which is, in
    >>> this case, clearly inferior? Sure, Polaroid will never be the mass
    >>> market success it once was, but there’s a good, retro niche for weird
    >>> analog cameras, currently occupied by Lomo.
    >>>
    >>> The cameras should go on sale this year. They will have flash, red-eye
    >>> reduction and even a self timer, and come in wood-effect or blobby
    >>> silver. Price TBA.
    >>>
    >>> View the attachments for this post at:
    >>> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=34255339#34255339

    >>
    >> Some years back (a dozen or more) Polaroid had a great ad: a baseball
    >> fan finds himself next to Henry Aaron in the front row at a major league
    >> game and has someone take his picture with Mr. Aaron. Then Henry Aaron
    >> signs the border of the SX70 (or Spectra) print. Only Polaroid could do
    >> that. Digital could not, conventional film could not. The problem was,
    >> when you thought about it, only in the extraordinarily unlikely event
    >> that you would find yourself in that or similar situation would the
    >> Polaroid become indispensible. Hardly a reason to buy one and the film
    >> and truck it all around.

    >
    >I had an SX-70 when I was a kid, I would get another if they had it but
    >not another model like in that link :-( The SX-70 was pretty dang cool
    >how it folded up & had that faux leather with the proud plastic white
    >Shell :)


    A fellow I know owns a automobile body shop. He uses a Polaroid to
    document damage that will not be repaired as part of an insurance job.
    If the insurance claim is for an accident for the right front fender,
    the body shop can't fix the right rear door if there's a ding that
    wasn't part of the claim unless the customer pays extra. He takes a
    Polaroid shot, has the customer initial the photo to indicate he knows
    it won't be repaired, and staples the photo to the job ticket.

    He stocked up on Polaroid film when he heard it was going to be
    discontinued.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jan 13, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul Furman

    Guest

    On Jan 13, 2:03 am, tony cooper <> wrote:
    > A fellow I know owns a automobile body shop.  He uses a Polaroid to
    > document damage that will not be repaired as part of an insurance job.
    > If the insurance claim is for an accident for the right front fender,
    > the body shop can't fix the right rear door if there's a ding that
    > wasn't part of the claim unless the customer pays extra.  He takes a
    > Polaroid shot, has the customer initial the photo to indicate he knows
    > it won't be repaired, and staples the photo to the job ticket.


    State Farm adjusters use digicams for a similar role. Granted, the
    customer doesn't initial or sign the print - but the digicam photos do
    make clear, when in conjunction with the accident report and the
    claim, what happened in that particular accident. You just don't have
    rust on a day-old damaged spot.

    http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
     
    , Jan 13, 2010
    #3
  4. Paul Furman

    Paul Furman Guest

    tony cooper wrote:
    > Paul Furman wrote:
    >> Michael wrote:
    >>> JLA said:
    >>>
    >>>> Imagine you are an iconic camera company, and in your glory days your
    >>>> film was an essential for both fashion photographers and fashionable
    >>>> party-goers. You were so popular that your product’s name became
    >>>> synonymous with instant pictures.
    >>>>
    >>>> Then the world turned digital, and you found yourself as washed up as
    >>>> the rock stars you once documented. You struggled to make yourself
    >>>> relevant, and failed, patronizing your loyal fans by offering them
    >>>> crappy product after crappy product. What do you do? You turn back
    >>>> the clock.
    >>>>
    >>>> The company is, of course, Polaroid, and it is set to launch a new
    >>>> range of film cameras. After its hideous attempts to combine a
    >>>> digital camera and a printer in a single (huge) box, the company will
    >>>> step back in time and make cameras which use Polaroid 1000 film. The
    >>>> range is called PIC-1000, and the devices resemble the Polaroids of
    >>>> yesteryear.
    >>>>
    >>>> This makes perfect sense. The Polaroid’s USP was instant prints. The
    >>>> odd quality of those prints were what made it an icon. And if film
    >>>> handles it so well, why even bother changing to digital which is, in
    >>>> this case, clearly inferior? Sure, Polaroid will never be the mass
    >>>> market success it once was, but there’s a good, retro niche for weird
    >>>> analog cameras, currently occupied by Lomo.
    >>>>
    >>>> The cameras should go on sale this year. They will have flash, red-eye
    >>>> reduction and even a self timer, and come in wood-effect or blobby
    >>>> silver. Price TBA.
    >>>>
    >>>> View the attachments for this post at:
    >>>> http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=34255339#34255339
    >>> Some years back (a dozen or more) Polaroid had a great ad: a baseball
    >>> fan finds himself next to Henry Aaron in the front row at a major league
    >>> game and has someone take his picture with Mr. Aaron. Then Henry Aaron
    >>> signs the border of the SX70 (or Spectra) print. Only Polaroid could do
    >>> that. Digital could not, conventional film could not. The problem was,
    >>> when you thought about it, only in the extraordinarily unlikely event
    >>> that you would find yourself in that or similar situation would the
    >>> Polaroid become indispensible. Hardly a reason to buy one and the film
    >>> and truck it all around.

    >> I had an SX-70 when I was a kid, I would get another if they had it but
    >> not another model like in that link :-( The SX-70 was pretty dang cool
    >> how it folded up & had that faux leather with the proud plastic white
    >> Shell :)

    >
    > A fellow I know owns a automobile body shop. He uses a Polaroid to
    > document damage that will not be repaired as part of an insurance job.
    > If the insurance claim is for an accident for the right front fender,
    > the body shop can't fix the right rear door if there's a ding that
    > wasn't part of the claim unless the customer pays extra. He takes a
    > Polaroid shot, has the customer initial the photo to indicate he knows
    > it won't be repaired, and staples the photo to the job ticket.
    >
    > He stocked up on Polaroid film when he heard it was going to be
    > discontinued.


    Yeah but is it a cool looking folding SX-70?
    http://www.foundphotography.com/PhotoThoughts/archives/2006/06/polaroid_sx70_modification_for.html

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Jan 13, 2010
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Steven C \(Doktersteve\)

    Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras that use film?

    Steven C \(Doktersteve\), Jan 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    946
  2. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    614
    Dave Martindale
    Nov 5, 2005
  3. wagwheel

    Cameras--Cameras--Cameras

    wagwheel, Mar 31, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    438
    Mark B.
    Apr 1, 2007
  4. Turning film cameras into digital cameras

    , Apr 7, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    112
    Views:
    2,563
    Bill Funk
    May 8, 2007
  5. RichA

    Fuji resurrects the 2/3" sensor

    RichA, Sep 1, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,366
    PeterN
    Sep 5, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page