Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,812   Posts: 1,581,557   Online: 966
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48
  1. #21
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,950
    Images
    226

    Polaroid for a teenager

    Quote Originally Posted by Prest_400 View Post
    I have an old instax print, taken in 1998 or so and it is an integral film. The frame of the print is textured paper and the back is paper with the (now empty) chemistry pods. Never done instant photography, but have some prints (polaroids, instax and kodak instant).
    Unless it has changed, instax should be an integral type instant film. So far, Fuji and TIP are the remaining players of the integral instant film?

    ...SHould get myself into instant photography someday, it's attractive (except for the wallet) and magic.
    I stand corrected then...


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Prest_400 View Post
    I have an old instax print, taken in 1998 or so and it is an integral film. The frame of the print is textured paper and the back is paper with the (now empty) chemistry pods.
    Yes, and it is basically the old Kodak Instant Print Film. Kodak had licensed the Asian production to Fuji and Fuji was never sued by Polaroid, so the product continues.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    339
    Images
    11
    Yes and they produce film for the old Polaroid pack cameras which is peel apart but not integral film for Polaroids ... Sort of ironic as their already producing integral film for their own cameras but not Polaroid's ....at least we have the impossible project.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,090
    Quote Originally Posted by cepwin View Post
    Sort of ironic as their already producing integral film for their own cameras but not Polaroid's .....

    The Kodak Instant Film/Fuji Instax Film is shot through a cover sheet on the back of the print and therefor requires 0 or 2 mirrors. The Polaroid integral film (using completely different chemistry) is shot through the front of the print and requires 1 or 3 mirrors.

  5. #25
    EASmithV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,885
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    123
    Another +1 for the instax system. Sharp, contrasty, beautiful film, the likes of which you won't find from impossible any time soon if ever, and cleaner and easier than pack film. The film is comparatively affordable too.
    www.EASmithV.com

    "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera."— Dorothea Lange
    http://www.flickr.com/easmithv/
    RIP Kodachrome

  6. #26
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,950
    Images
    226

    Polaroid for a teenager

    Quote Originally Posted by EASmithV View Post
    Another +1 for the instax system. Sharp, contrasty, beautiful film, the likes of which you won't find from impossible any time soon if ever, and cleaner and easier than pack film. The film is comparatively affordable too.
    Then how come they won't make a check ing back for film cameras like a 120 RZ / Hasslwbla back? Isn't it almost 120 sized?


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,221
    Images
    58
    Instax film, be it the mini size or wide is amazingly sharp film with very little grain for an ISO800 film. Highly, highly recommended over any Polaroid equivalent.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    364
    the cheapest most reliable and I guess safest would definitely be the instax as most have said.

    but if you'd rather get a Polaroid and go for the TIP, then you could get a polaroid 3000RF instead of an sx-70.
    it's an all plastic body with rangefinder, rather than zone or fixed focus like the other plastic body polaroids.
    it also uses integral film (100, not 600) so would work with TIP film.

    you can usually get them for under $30.

    if you'd like, I have one I can send over to you, just pm me.

  9. #29
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,950
    Images
    226

    Polaroid for a teenager

    Quote Originally Posted by himself View Post
    the cheapest most reliable and I guess safest would definitely be the instax as most have said.

    but if you'd rather get a Polaroid and go for the TIP, then you could get a polaroid 3000RF instead of an sx-70.
    it's an all plastic body with rangefinder, rather than zone or fixed focus like the other plastic body polaroids.
    it also uses integral film (100, not 600) so would work with TIP film.

    you can usually get them for under $30.

    if you'd like, I have one I can send over to you, just pm me.
    I think you meant "600 NOT 100" but nice of you. Yay for APUG givers


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    364
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    I think you meant "600 NOT 100"
    nope meant that it takes the sx-70 film which is asa 100 (no?), sorry if that wasn't clear

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin