Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,686   Posts: 1,482,300   Online: 918
      
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 96
  1. #11
    Ektagraphic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southeastern Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,678
    Images
    23
    I just can't wait to see the revisions....Especially the 600 film!
    Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time

  2. #12
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,835
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by patois View Post
    I hear Lady GaGA has invested her own money in Polaroid so I would assume they are planning something big.
    Oh for C Sakes..
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  3. #13
    Ektagraphic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southeastern Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,678
    Images
    23
    Here are some of my shots that I have scanned.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails scan0001.jpg   scan0002.jpg   scan0003.jpg   scan0004.jpg  
    Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    VT
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    551
    Images
    1
    I've been loving the film- I've just run one pack so far, but I've got two more here.




    I'm also trying the Fade To Black, but having less success with that.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    345
    How much of the softness etc. in the photos do you guys think is in the film and how much is the old crappy cameras?
    IIRC all the Polaroid cameras except for the high dollar SX-70 SLRs had inherently inferior exposure control and they always developed alignment problems in the rollers that spread the "goo." The misalignment always resulted in uneven development.

  6. #16
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,400
    Images
    2
    I don't think it's the cameras, because I've yet to see a single picture that doesn't have these characteristics. Besides, SX-70's are pretty nice.

    It sounds like we can only expect the film to become more refined, and if it doesn't, it's still a cool look.

    I really do believe in its power to "distill" your composition, which I think will teach us a lot about our own picture taking prowess.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    345
    Well, the photos posted here look interesting anyway. I'm thinking I may still have one of the first generation SX-70 cameras. Time to go rummaging through the closets to see if I can find something to try this out with.

  8. #18
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,835
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by holmburgers View Post
    I really do believe in its power to "distill" your composition, which I think will teach us a lot about our own picture taking prowess.
    Huh? I've heard all the polaroid-speak out there, but please fill me in on this one.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  9. #19
    Joe VanCleave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by holmburgers View Post
    I don't think it's the cameras, because I've yet to see a single picture that doesn't have these characteristics. Besides, SX-70's are pretty nice.

    It sounds like we can only expect the film to become more refined, and if it doesn't, it's still a cool look.

    I really do believe in its power to "distill" your composition, which I think will teach us a lot about our own picture taking prowess.
    The original SX-70s had very nice optics; they are remarkably sophisticated cameras.

    I would hope that the Impossible films prove, over time, to be less impossible, otherwise I'm not sure I'll purchase more than one or two packs to test them out.

    I like this idea about the distillation of composition, although I don't think it's a property unique to instant films. It reminds me of A. Adam's quote, about "sharp images of fuzzy concepts," where I've seen many sharp "test shots" on digital camera forums, whose resolution, tonal range and dynamic range are textbook state-of-the-art, but the image itself is, well, pedestrian. Another example is a well-made pinhole camera image that, although lacking in technical sophistication in virtually every metric measurable, somehow comes through the lo-res muck to reveal something essential. This kind of hidden art is not about the format or technique - it has nothing to do intrinsically with instant film's properties - but rather about how a person, skilled in photographic technique, can apply their inner artistic gifts and transcend the medium.

    ~Joe

  10. #20
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,400
    Images
    2

    clarification

    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Huh? I've heard all the polaroid-speak out there, but please fill me in on this one.
    Joe (next post) nailed it. The Ansel Adam's quote is exactly what I had in mind. By distill I mean, reduce to it's most fundamental elements. The PX100 doesn't give you continuous tonal gradations, or rich deep blacks w/ sparkling highlights, or sumptuous grain (any more sexy adjectives out there??)...

    What it does give you is a "line drawing", if you will, of your picture. As is the case, the composition must be powerful enough to overcome these other "shortcomings" that we all get off on, but really have nothing to do with what makes a great photograph.

    It's like, why do all of Ken Rockwell's pictures suck, yet he has the most sophisticated gear?

    Hopefully Mr. Rockwell's not a member here, or any fans of his.....

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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