The Impossible Project, and film photography, makes the Washington Post
Interesting article on the progress of analog photography.
"There’s also a sense of backlash against digital technology, and the emergence of what might be called a 'slow photo' movement."
"Tim, who took my picture, is a creative director with an ad agency and shoots digital all the time for work. Shooting on his Polaroid has made him look at pictures differently. 'I used to go out and shoot 300 photos, bam, bam, bam,' he says. 'With film, you can't do that. It’s too expensive. You have to slow down. You have to think before you shoot.' "
"There is very limited audience for the arty stuff, and it is largely comprised of other arty types, most of whom have no money to spend because no one is buying their stuff either. More people bring their emotions to an image than bring their intellect. The former are the folks who have checkbooks because they are engineers, accountants, and bankers—and generally they are engineers, accountants and bankers because they are not artists."
— Amanda Tomlin, Looking Glass Magazine, 2014
What that article does nor say: it was neither the idea nor the knowledge of those former employees to start Impossible. Both came from outside.
not sure what your point is beyond historical background. The project started, it seems to be succeeding. That's what matters.
Originally Posted by AgX
Might not be a bad idea for folks on APUG to look around for opportunities to teach younger folk about film. When someone says "can you still get film for that?" say "Sure, would you like to learn more about it?"
That article is about engagement into analogue photography. Exactly that was lacking in that case.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
A new trend, what does that mean?
A generalized new interest in film photography? A new interest by some people at some places?
I'd say, the latter. Even here in Germany with a stronger hold to analogue photography there are dealers which keep their films under the counter due to scarceness of request. Others have some films still on their shelves but would never order instant film (Fuji Instax). Others have not only analogue cameras in the shopwindow (Instax) but even plain type 135 next to it.
One dealer in a hipster shop took the Lomography range out of his sales programm due to lack of interest, a photo shop in another but similar city just expanded vastly his Lomography range.
Last edited by AgX; 08-23-2013 at 07:25 PM. Click to view previous post history.
I see Polaroid cameras all the time at my local thrift shop. But I know nothing about which formats are/are not available and don't really dare to buy any of them. I figure it might be fun, but I remember all the shitty Polaroids my mom made back in the 70's and really don't want to repeat that. Is there anything that would appeal to the f64 crowd (you know what I mean) or is this all Lomo type stuff? If I can make some quality images, Ok, but I am not the slightest bit interested in the hipster/lomo world. Is this stuff ready for prime time?
“You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness. You exist for the sake of avoiding punishment. We exist for the sake of earning rewards. Threats will not make us function; fear is not our incentive. It is not death that we wish to avoid, but life that we wish to live.” - John Galt
I've wasted several hundreds of dollars on impossible film but willing to try again at a later date...
I gave it my best
website down for maintenance!
Surely others here had to have noticed that heretical paragraph about "Instant Lab."
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.
It's possible that you could find the resolution and grain of the Fuji (FP100C and FP3000B, 100ASA color and 3000ASA mono) (AKA peel-aparts) acceptable but you have to realize a couple things. One, its hard to manage the negatives out in the field without some sort of custom-built holder as they are floppy and wet and gooey and fragile until they dry, at which point they are floppy and fragile and easily scratched. He negs can be bleached into a printable form but that's yet another step. The prints tend to be grainier and less sharp and just a bit more "Lomo."
Originally Posted by pbromaghin
Back in the day, Polaroid made peel-aparts and made backs to fit Hasselblads, RB/RZ67, other medium and large format cams, plus their own medium format interchangeable lens rangefinder: 600 SE. They called their peel-apart Type 100 in general, but there were a bazillion different types of film that all were 3x4 and had either just a print or print plus neg.
Of course, then there is the Impossible stuff (integral). There are three main types of Polaroid/Impossible film, two of which fit the same cameras. Spectra has the biggest film area, the SX70 folding has the best glass lens and the best design, and the folding 600/660/etc and plastic SX70 cams generally suck.