|
|
|
-
tried it, didn't like it. makes me very sad.
http://www.aclancyphotography.com
-
The problem with doing it today like Kodak did it in years past is that doing it that way no longer works. That's why Kodak is bankrupt.
In years past Kodak - and the others - could afford to self-fund new research and products because film was the only game in town. Everyone's profitable product lines could subsidize development of new product lines. And the public never saw those new products unless and until they were perfect. That doesn't work anymore because that critical mass of consumers isn't there anymore.
TIP may succeed in reaching a perfect instant film. Or they may not, and go out of business. Or they may not, and stay in business at the "Lomo" level they're at right now. But funding their efforts by shrewdly marketing their research prototypes to the public is likely the ONLY way they could have made the attempt to resurrect a Polaroid-like film product in the first place. (Unless, of course, Paul Allen had off-handedly mentioned to Florian Kaps over lunch one day that he always really, really liked Polaroids...)
I seem to recall that Mirko did the same thing with the first not-yet-perfect runs of his resurrected APX400-like b&w film. It's a new world these days.
Ken
"The richness of the experience that occurs when one is exposed tangibly to a subject, material, or process is unmatchable in the abstract... Thus, when 'touch it,' 'taste it,' smell it' become the watchwords, the results are most often extraordinary. Equally extraordinary are the lengths to which people will go to avoid [that] experience."
— Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman Jr., In Search of Excellence, 1982
-
I find it funny the Impossible project team doesnt have a rep. on Apug, or has responded or participated in this discussion that has been running for a few days.
-
Microsoft gave out an early (Beta) version of Windows NT (4.0) to a number of large companies. Kodak was one of them and the other one was a large oil company.
The software crashed regularly and gave us headaches. It paralyzed the oil company. I remember at the time that PC Week had a feature article on this.
Anyhow, those of us that complained about Windows when the new version came out a while back, well, that was probably another case of Beta release.
Maybe new products cannot be tested the same lavish way they used to be, but we should still not be forced to peel apart a product that is supposed to be integral, nor should we have to shield the print from sun if it is supposed to develop in front of us anywhere.
I think that is part of my point and part of why the customer has to be "instructed" to work around product shortcomings.
Ok, I agree that they are bleeding money. Yes, they need cash. But why charge full price up front and face dissatisfied customers?
IDK. This whole thing makes me feel uneasy.
PE
-
I once read that the Art of Engineering is the art of risk mitigation. One can never reduce risk levels to zero in any designed system. But one goes as far as one can in pursuit of that goal. Real engineers always feel uneasy. The best continue to feel that way even after a product is out the door and into the wild.
I'd hazard a guess that engineering goal hasn't changed for TIP, or for Mirko. What's changed in today's new world is that pesky definition of "as far as one can..."
Ken
"The richness of the experience that occurs when one is exposed tangibly to a subject, material, or process is unmatchable in the abstract... Thus, when 'touch it,' 'taste it,' smell it' become the watchwords, the results are most often extraordinary. Equally extraordinary are the lengths to which people will go to avoid [that] experience."
— Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman Jr., In Search of Excellence, 1982
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
 Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
If a defect only shows up in the field, it means that you yourself did not do adequate field testing. If prints go bad after one year due to failed seals, you did not have release specs and tests up to this task!
IMHO, from most of the results shown, it is not a product yet, and should not be sold yet.
PE
PE, with that kind of attitude, you obviously never worked for a software company.
-
I did a lot of software development at EK. I know what it is like to debug millions of lines of code. OTOH, if it does not work the first time it is tried in the field, you have not done much testing. I had hundreds of test case scenarios that I went through after I made a change to the software I was working on. Same for film development when I did it.
Yes,we were blindsided several times with film products and software, but to me this product seems pretty poor at this stage of release. Which gets me back to the original point. They had the formulas and still can't do it? That is how hard restarting any analog product will be, and that is why I have said before how expensive and lengthy of a process it will be.
PE
-
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Microsoft gave out an early (Beta) version of Windows NT (4.0) to a number of large companies. Kodak was one of them and the other one was a large oil company.
The software crashed regularly and gave us headaches. It paralyzed the oil company. I remember at the time that PC Week had a feature article on this.
Anyhow, those of us that complained about Windows when the new version came out a while back, well, that was probably another case of Beta release.
Maybe new products cannot be tested the same lavish way they used to be, but we should still not be forced to peel apart a product that is supposed to be integral, nor should we have to shield the print from sun if it is supposed to develop in front of us anywhere.
I think that is part of my point and part of why the customer has to be "instructed" to work around product shortcomings.
Ok, I agree that they are bleeding money. Yes, they need cash. But why charge full price up front and face dissatisfied customers?
IDK. This whole thing makes me feel uneasy.
PE
They never said or claimed you can watch it develop in front of your eyes. The customer is used to it because of Polaroid and Fuji. But this is what I meant by they are making a new product. And therefor people need to know how to handle it. Instant means you will have a photo within minutes after taking it. With peel apart film you cannot watch it develop either. It sucks that it needs to be protected but it is not a bug perse. (I do question though why Fuji can do the same trick as Polaroid and TIP cannot shield the forming image against light)
But the thing with those crystals forming...the should have discovered it while testing for themselves.
Why are they charging premium prices? Well you can always go down with your price. The public will accept that no problem. But to go up is way more difficult. Especially with a luxury product as this. And if you charge 15 dollars for a faulty product why pay 20 for a good product if you have to take the produces word for it. Not gonna happen.
But I do understand how this practice would make you feel uneasy. On some points I agree and on some points I don't 
-
to be honest, the only reason for me to shoot instant film (an film in general) beside the fun, is to get a different look than 99% of the other photographers. Last thing i want are flawless pictures that I have to edit in Photoshop to make them look interesting. So for me, and a lot of other photograpgers this is a perfect product. As lomography is. But I understand, that this is a dangerous discussion. In any case it is great to have a choice!
-
If they ever come up with a new version of type 55P/N that actually works, I'll use some. But it will have to be as good and as reliable as the Polaroid 55P/N, or there is no point in my using it.
|
|
Adv Reply
