Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,522   Posts: 1,543,809   Online: 766
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11
    Alex Hawley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,895
    Images
    63
    Interesting observations. On the B&W side of things, has anyone compared Fuji FP100B to the Polaroid types for print quality? I'm meaning prints from Type 52, 55, or 54. The Polaroid prints can be exquisite but based on this thread, I'm wondering.
    Semper Fi & God Bless America
    My Photography Blog

  2. #12
    Stephen Frizza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,380
    Images
    174
    From working in labs there was a very odd thing which I observed Polaroid was bought by photographers who wanted off colour so that the clients would look at the image and go eww and then look at the final transparency and go WOW!!!.

    With fuji the product was always rich and accurate and so the wow factor when the client saw the tranny was supposedly less so hehehe.
    Also when photographers shoot and need something matched to an instant film they always seemed to supply fuji. It was far more accurate across the board. Is it just people dont know how to use polaroid properly? or that it really is poor at replication of colour?

    one advantage to polaroid is it seems to handle very long exposures better than fuji.

  3. #13
    tim_walls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Croydon & Leeds
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,037
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Frizza View Post
    From working in labs there was a very odd thing which I observed Polaroid was bought by photographers who wanted off colour so that the clients would look at the image and go eww and then look at the final transparency and go WOW!!!.
    With fuji the product was always rich and accurate and so the wow factor when the client saw the tranny was supposedly less so hehehe.
    Brilliant, I like it!
    Also when photographers shoot and need something matched to an instant film they always seemed to supply fuji. It was far more accurate across the board. Is it just people dont know how to use polaroid properly? or that it really is poor at replication of colour?
    Speculating entirely here, but I imagine part of it is simply that the Fuji is a newer formulation/newer technology. Presumably if Polaroid went out there and changed (say) Type 79 now to perform better, there would be outrage from everyone who had got used to its unique characteristics (Polaroid is the old Holga among the art set after all, and if Polaroids started actually looking like decent prints they'd lose part of that charm.) But on the other hand, there probably isn't the market there to justify producing a new type which is any good, and selling it in addition to Type 79 - after all, in a declining market they'd probably just see it as cannibalising their own sales.
    Another day goes under; a little bourbon will take the strain...

  4. #14
    Akki14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    London, UK
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,873
    Images
    210
    I've noticed, in medium format, between the B&W polaroid and B&W fuji films that there seems to be less messy goo on the fuji instant products. I've not used any polaroid colour but I like what I've seen as far as fuji FP100C in medium format.
    ~Heather
    oooh shiny!
    http://www.stargazy.org/

  5. #15
    tim_walls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Croydon & Leeds
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,037
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Akki14 View Post
    I've noticed, in medium format, between the B&W polaroid and B&W fuji films that there seems to be less messy goo on the fuji instant products. I've not used any polaroid colour but I like what I've seen as far as fuji FP100C in medium format.
    In general, I'd agree with that too. But for balance, I would say I've had one pack of FP100C go catastrophically wrong in the back (can't remember what happened exactly, but it definitely went pear shaped) leaving me with a horrific mess of gunk all over the rollers and holder, so the Fuji definitely can go wrong as well.

    (Typically, this happened in the middle of a session with a model. I learnt from that incident that if I were doing the job professionally, I'd make sure to have two pack holders .)

    Also in defence of Polaroid, I should say my most recent gallery photo (which was uploaded before this thread started I hasten to add) is a Polacolor 79 print. If you know its limits it can still make a nice (to me) end product:

    (Although this isn't the 'end product' in this case - I have some sheets of film to develop over Christmas - it's 'good enough for the web'. That's one of the reasons I like instant film - I can participate in my local group's fun 'theme photo competitions' on the Internet and get a shot up quicker than the digital folk. I can then work on getting an actually decent image out of the negs at my leisure.)
    Another day goes under; a little bourbon will take the strain...

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    861
    I rarely have failures with either companies Instant films, though it seems about equal between them. Overall I think Fuji FP100C falls somewhere between Polaroid 669 and 690 in colour response, which is one of the reasons I use it. The other reason for me getting Fuji Instant is that I still use a Polaroid 550 pack film holder, and Polaroid no longer make any films for these holders. The Fuji Instant films are more expensive than Polaroid films, so for my Polaroid 405 holder, and my 250 Automatic camera, I mostly buy Polaroid Instant films.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat Photography

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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