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

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://en.wikipedia.org/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?

 

No one would, but I post to 24hr fairly often. Rather than
multiposting, which I did once and never heard the end of it, I
crossposted. Please note that I said "some of you may know".
That statement was primarily intended for 24hr, although it IS
within the realm of possibility that a few people from here
might visit 24hr on occasion.

Frankly, I don't remember EVER posting here. But I have a bad
memory. Since obviously you looked it up, what was the post
about?

Not since about 10 or 12 years ago.

Obviously you never held the original in your hands nor saw the
photos it produced.

Here we go. You disagree with a statement, but can't come up
with a single valid counter-opinion let alone fact, so you call
the OP a troll. Bravo!

It's not cheap, it's free, as you would have discovered had you
looked at the links I provided.

SIGH.


--
"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

 

Why would anybody who has heard of the Usenet (you'de be
surprised how many people have no idea it exists) bother with
iTunes, which is not even available in the vast majority of
countries?

Not to mention it's a sick combination of record company weasels
and of Jobs' evil empire.

"In spite of a lot of a complaints about illegal internet file
sharing/downloading, record company profits are soaring to
astounding new heights yearly."

(Paraphrased fact.)


--
"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

 

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

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

 

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.

The SX-70 was something of a consumer toy with cute internal chemistry.
The earlier system was somewhat messy as I recall and involved a final
stage fixative if you cared about the longevity of the final image.

People forget in these days of instant feedback digital that in the old
days of film you had to pay a significant premium to get same day lab
processing and insane prices to get reliable same hour proofs.

 

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.

 

what does usenet have to do with using itunes? people can use both.

absolutely false. it's available in over 120 countries, representing
most of the world's population.

ok, you're a troll.

that's because people are buying more music. is there something wrong
with that?

 

i have and it's nothing special. the mechanical design of the original
sx70 was clever, but it was expensive. later models weren't
collapsible.

the photos weren't all that great and it's nothing that can't be done
digitally if you like that look.

 

Polaroids were popular with the insurance industry (adjustors) and
people recording illegal activities (their own).

<nods>

--
http://www.privacySOS.org | www.extinctioncrisis.org
www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.savewolves.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \[email protected]_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\

 

I'd forgotten about the former and was too engrossed in my work to
attempt the latter. They say it's never too late, but whoever "they"
are were wrong.

 

Of course, but why pay for something you don't have to pay for,
and submit to spyware and draconian DRM regulations. And if you
think people who do NOT pay for their music are robbing the
benevolent saints of the holy record companies, read the last 2
paragraphs.

You are correct. But the last time I paid any attention to it,
it was only available in about 3.
My bad for not keeping up with the weasels.

Great. Again. You disagree with a statement, but can't come up
with a single valid counter-opinion let alone fact, so you call
the OP a troll. Bravo!

How about this: YOU are a moron.

YOU /ARE/ a moron. There is nothing wrong with people buying
more music - there is something wrong about record/media
companies wanting (just one example) a 12 year old girl to pay a
$100,000 fine for having the theme to a TV show on her computer,
especially when all facts indicate that the internet and music
dl'g has INCREASED profits for the weasels.

Have you ever known anybody in a band who had records out on a
major label? I have. You should hear what happens - unless
you're a Britney Spears or Led Zeppelin.

Plonk.



--
"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

 

itunes is free and this is about the app store not music. about 1/3rd
of apps are free and nearly all of them are a couple of bucks or less.

as for music, there has been no drm in the itunes store for a few years
and when there was, it was anything but draconian. you could listen on
up to 5 macs (which is more than what most people have) or unlimited
ipods, and you could burn cds too to play in any cd player. it was
extremely rare that got in the way of normal usage scenarios.

it was *far* less draconian than the options available before the
itunes store, which were subscription based and if you stopped paying
every month, your music could no longer be played.

apple had been pushing for no drm but the only way the record companies
would go along with online sales was drm. a few years later, the record
companies realized drm was not really needed and now there's no drm.

your bad for being wrong again. the app store launched in 62 countries.

don't let facts get in the way of your rants.

see above.

how about this, you're full of shit.

there is obviously more to this case than what you are saying.

if she had to pay a fine, then she must have pirated it. nobody gets
fined $100k for legitimately downloading music or tv shows.

the funny thing is, steve jobs and his so called evil empire lets the
indie bands skip the record companies and offer music directly to
consumers. the record industry is the real problem, not apple. i'm sure
that fact (like every other fact it seems) is no doubt lost on you.

 

Depends on what that something is doesn;t it.

That;s usually how you pay for free stuff.
Spyware is virtually always free.
The DRM is due to the music indusrty.

Don;t you have to be dead to be a saint.

When was that ?, maybe you should keep up, things change quite
rapidly

So where's your evidence of Jobs evil empire, what's evil about it.

How does that prove you're point(s) ?

When a mporon knows the facts while a self confessed genius
thinks iTunes is only availble in 3 countries ?
When you haven't a clue find out, it'#s not that difficult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AppleStoreAvailability.png

yep so what was your point.

Are you saying that's the fault of iTunes or steve Jobs....
Neither have applied this fine.

The same doesn;t happen to everyone.

Yes and then MS stoll the gui from Apple after it made the windows
dragable and movable with a mouse,
rather than by a programer typing in the co-ordinates of a new window
via the keyboard which was how the Xerox system worked
we had one in my lab I remmebr a reasearch student showing me how to
use it..

 

yep...the "instant" polaroid was your "eye witness" back in the day.

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

 

roups.com:

I already have everything I ever wanted (and these days I listen
to classical radio most of the time anyway) - I replaced the
LP's and CD's and cassettes I have bought over the last 45 years
but had to leave behind due to an abnormal amount of moving all
over the place, and I found a few additional things by accident.
My conscience is fairly clear.

And, in spit of the billions of "tunes" they claim to have, I
somehow doubt they would have some of the things I like - and
had to go to a fair bit of trouble to find and buy before and
during the net age - they are NOT available anywhere on the
internet.

I am well aware of that.

One wishes!

Why should I keep up with iTunes? That'd be like regularly
writing to Jeffrey Dahmer.

Oh, c'mon.

Aside from the many recent posts about what a great guy Jobs was
to his employees (in CA and in China especially) and the fact
that iPods have been the final death blow to REAL music
APPRECIATION, here's the simplest thing I ever read that puts it
perfectly:

I find that with a PC, one must be smart enough to know how to
fix it if something goes wrong. With a Mac, one must be rich
enough to know how to purchase a new one for no reason.
anon

your, not you are

In no way whatsoever, but that guy is quite annoying. AND a
moron.

C'mon, buddy. I have never claimed to be a genius. I realize my
growing stupidity daily.

Again, I am not interested in iTunes any more than I am in
Jeffrey Dahmer. I wrote the OP because I think instagram is a
fantastic app which recreates some of the forever-lost past in
this stinky new world.

I forget - I suppose I just like to remind people that weasels
live and drive their BMW's among us.

Of course not, I am talking about whatever multinational was
involved. For all I know, Jobs was all for free content
available to everyone clever enough to get it (that was one of
net dreamers' ideals 25 years ago). We KNOW Gates is not.

It does happen to most.

Well, obviously you know more about this than I. But a lot of
people have NEVER heard of Xerox PARC. I consider the Xerox
photocopying machine and the Philips Compact Cassette (the ONLY
thing it lacked was a sync track in the center so the speed
would NEVER vary) among last century's greatest inventions.

Xerox were clever enough to RENT, not sell, their photocopiers
and made a huge amount of money from that. WHY weren't they
smart enough to realize the potential of their desktop, limited
as it was when Jobs saw it? (I suppose in most companies,
research and marketing are two VERY different divisions who
probably often hate each other...) And, FWIW, I am sure MS would
have done just as good a job of making the thing mousier etc.

I always thought highly of Jobs even though I wasn't crazy about
his products, but the recent info about his personality and
empire have made me think VERY differently. So I am mentioning
it, but I will try to stop. I heard something about Britney
Spears attempting a comeback of sorts, and that is MUCH more
important. We can only hope someday I will stop polluting the
sacred Usenet altogether.



--
"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

 

FWIW, I should mention that I consider almost all Polaroid
consumer products useful ONLY due to their instant/private
aspects.

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.


--
"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

 

if you aren't keeping up with it then you should not comment on it.

nonsense. ipods let people enjoy listening to music pretty much
anywhere they want. it's made it *better*.

that's pure bullshit.

so does everyone else.

in other words, you didn't have any point.

you neglect to mention anything relevant about the case. what was the
reason for the fine? she had to have been found guilty of something.

 

: 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://en.wikipedia.org/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 your wife should hide the bottle.

Bob

 

1. Learn to snip
2. I'm not married. I suffer enough as it is.


--
"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

 

ok bub...I have both an art degree and experience with polaroid
instamatics of various size shape & model, unless you had some s00per
sekrit only available to you film stock to play with and a one-off
prototype camera...yer blowing smoke out yer arse. polaroid film was temp
sensitive and you could ruin a piccy by leaving it in the sun. digital is
WAY better than any polaroid.

--
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://stopbeck.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \[email protected]_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\