PDA

View Full Version : The Impossible Project: 22 March 2010



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

clayne
04-02-2010, 01:03 AM
Check out the prices of SX-70s on eBay for a laugh.

Ektagraphic
04-02-2010, 09:00 AM
I was going to buy a couple of SX-70s back in November just to have them before the price jumped....It is still not that bad.....

Akki14
04-02-2010, 09:02 AM
Then it is kind of puzzling that their website says to make sure that it is perfectly in the middle......I think the one complaint that I have about this film is that you cannot watch it develop totally like you could with the Polaroid....

All SX-70s come with an ND filter over the electronic eye. It's just held on by a clip-on silver plastic circle. Pop it off, take the filter out, put the ring back on, keep the ND filter safe somewhere just in case you ever need it.

It'll work a hell of a lot better then. Honestly.

Ektagraphic
04-02-2010, 09:06 AM
Why is it put there in the first place?.....Poalroid did not seem like a dumb company back when Polaroid was really Polaroid not just a name slapped on cheap Chinese electronics that are low quality....

Moopheus
04-02-2010, 09:16 AM
Check out the prices of SX-70s on eBay for a laugh.

Well, it's hardly surprising there might be more demand for the cameras if people can actually use them. This means that people are interested enough in the new product to buy the camera and try it; this is a good thing.

kraker
04-02-2010, 10:13 AM
Btw, I actually attended the event, it was a lot of fun. :)

Was the event invitation-only? Beforehand, I did see that it would take place in NYC, and I knew I would be visiting NYC in the week of the 22nd. I had really expected that a location for the event would be revealed prior to the event, but I didn't see anything :mad:. Not for the general public??? Or did I miss something? :(

Such a shame. Would have been fun to be there.

(Where was the event held?)

Akki14
04-02-2010, 10:13 AM
Why is it put there in the first place?.....Poalroid did not seem like a dumb company back when Polaroid was really Polaroid not just a name slapped on cheap Chinese electronics that are low quality....

Probably to compensate and get the electronic eye to meter correctly for the original sx-70 film which was around ISO100. I still maintain that PX 100 is definitely not anywhere near as slow as ISO100 from my tests.

arealitystudios
04-02-2010, 10:42 AM
I just picked up my first two packs this morning from the post office. Of course its raining today and terribly dark outside so I won't be able to shoot with it right away. major bummer. :mad:

Not to be overly critical but I can't help but wonder a little if the film could be a bit cheaper if they didn't spend so much money on the fancy packaging. The raised lettering on the outside box for example is expensive to print.

Just a thought, and I'm certainly no packaging expert. As it stands I don't think the cost is completely unreasonable. SX-70 film was always on the expensive side.

Ektagraphic
04-02-2010, 02:02 PM
Another tip* Keep in mind that part of the development is triggered by light. Right when the photo comes out of the camera you must protect it from light but after between 60-90 seconds ( I find 75 is good) you must flip over the photo to allow light to get to it so it can finish its process. If you leave the print out of the light for more than 90 it will come out overexposed.

Photo Engineer
04-02-2010, 02:31 PM
Another tip* Keep in mind that part of the development is triggered by light. Right when the photo comes out of the camera you must protect it from light but after between 60-90 seconds ( I find 75 is good) you must flip over the photo to allow light to get to it so it can finish its process. If you leave the print out of the light for more than 90 it will come out overexposed.

This is, IMHO, bizarre and was not needed for any previous Polaroid product.

PE

Ektagraphic
04-02-2010, 02:55 PM
According to their literature it says that the one of the processes is started by reaction with light.....And from taking some test shots it certainly seems true.....

sperera
04-02-2010, 03:02 PM
i just bought one for $4


Check out the prices of SX-70s on eBay for a laugh.

Photo Engineer
04-02-2010, 03:26 PM
According to their literature it says that the one of the processes is started by reaction with light.....And from taking some test shots it certainly seems true.....

Both Kodak PR-10 and all Polaroid processes were heavily protected from light.

Polaroid used carbon black in the coating and dyes in the goo and Kodak used carbon black in the coating and the goo. Edge rails were present to prevent light piping into the coating from the separators.

So, no light was needed after the exposure and was excluded. IDK what these guys are doing.

PE

photomem
04-02-2010, 07:35 PM
I think the light is needed because of the opaque layer on the top of the film. Supposedly, it is completely blue opaque when the shot is ejected, then after development, it fades when exposed to light.

Photo Engineer
04-02-2010, 08:14 PM
Polaroids SX-70 was blue-green when ejected and gradually turned white as the image appeared. The blue-green was a mixture of indicator dyes in the goo which turned colorless when neutralized by the shut down chemistry.

PE

AgX
04-02-2010, 08:15 PM
The Polaroid way was to use the decline of alkalinity for bleaching the protective dye. As such process takes place by time, in light, the light could erroneously considered the cause of the process.

Akki14
04-03-2010, 03:27 AM
Another tip* Keep in mind that part of the development is triggered by light. Right when the photo comes out of the camera you must protect it from light but after between 60-90 seconds ( I find 75 is good) you must flip over the photo to allow light to get to it so it can finish its process. If you leave the print out of the light for more than 90 it will come out overexposed.

Where did you hear this? I've not heard this at all. Surely when TIP says "triggered by light" they mean the initial exposure before being rollered...

Because mine go directly into something dark within seconds of being ejected and they stay there for 5 minutes until they are fully done developing - no peeking.

Photo Engineer
04-03-2010, 08:34 AM
The Polaroid way was to use the decline of alkalinity for bleaching the protective dye. As such process takes place by time, in light, the light could erroneously considered the cause of the process.

The dyes were indicator dyes that became colorless as the pH became neutral or acid.

PE

Alex Bishop-Thorpe
04-03-2010, 08:56 AM
The only way I'll ever get to try this is to have it shipped to a mate in the US and have them pop it in the post to me - every time I try to buy from Impossible they tack on some ridiculous postage for Australia. Sorry, I know full well it doesn't cost them $50 to mail me a pack of film.
It's not an error, it's how polapremium/impossible have always calculated shipping if you're outside the US or europe.

illumiquest
04-03-2010, 09:21 AM
3$ a shot would really eat into my beer budget.