Fuji huh? I have written it on the blackboard 100 times.
Here in Texas, it's all about the tellin' not so much about the spellin'.

Love all the technology we work with. I started in 1995. I do miss the markup on polaroid's. Late eighties to the 90's $4.50 a sheet of 55. Ah those wore the days.

Once I have the monitor calibrated as best as possible, I use it visually knowing it's limitations in particular areas such a color or brightness. The same way as the polaroid's you would look and compensate knowing you film stock and the processing.

I hope all had a great weekend...

if you guys miss Polaroid so much they go buy some - Calumet seems to still be selling it - including type 55, 669, 690, 667, 664, 803, 553, 53, 672, 52, 67, 72, 51

I don't see what the problem is - if you love it go buy it and stock up.

shapps, that "film" stuff has a limited shelf life, apparently. You could buy a lifetime supply and still not have any to use in a year or three.

M

Unfortunately still I believe the film camera is the best choice for photography and it's art.

quote:

Originally posted by kombizz:
[qb] Unfortunately still I believe the film camera is the best choice for photography and it's art. [/qb]

+1

Unfortunatelly it seems that if you work sitting in front of a nicely square packed computer everything is then automatically better as it is a more "modern" tecnology.

Just like getting your nicely square packed, deep fried, frozen, ultra processed lunch at the McDonalds drive thru, it gives you that instant gratification and it is more convinient and of course so percieved by the masses as "better" than some antiquated healthy satisfying and time consuming home cooked meal.

And to think that some of us have a lifetime of working among marketers of goods!

Digital is a poor faxcimile of reality and no matter home many ones and zeroes you jam inside a camera sensor it will never be as real as film for one simple reason, both film and human beings are analog. Digital just pretends to be so.

Film is in no way any closer to the "Real" that the human eye sees and the brain translates than digital. Both are an interpretation, and a poor one at that.

Technology has eliminated a lot of the "wow" moments from a photo shoot. This isn't always a bad thing - because wow can mean many things. But the inherent delays in the film process meant a certain amount of tension, and a great release when you'd see that perfect shot on the light table. There was a definite thrill when you nailed something, and the delay was a part of that thrill.

Shots are much more about engineering these days...in many cases it's almost like beating an image into submission. Sure there's a certain magic at times. But instant review changes the entire flow of the shoot. The client expects to see the image the instant after the strobes pop. They blow it up to 200% and tweak. Over and over the refinements come...and in some cases just the acceptance of "good enough. we can fix the rest in post."

From an efficiency standpoint we have definitely come a long way. We can deliver exactly what the client wants more quickly with no surprises. But there has been something lost. The after shoot jube just seems a little flat at times, ya know?

I think the something lost is the edit that happens later. Often what seems a great shot on location, and one to overlook, can be viewed entirely differently on a later edit. Sometimes that time delay allows a better judgment of the final results. Waiting, even one day, is not necessarily worse.

quote:

Film is in no way any closer to the "Real" that the human eye sees and the brain translates than digital. Both are an interpretation, and a poor one at that.

Actually, technically, digital's inherently linear response to light is a bit closer to the human eye's than the shoulder and toe curves created by most films.

Ironically though, I usually add a shoulder and toe curve to my digital captures to make them look better. Not more or less real, just subjectively better - more punch, depth and perceived saturation.

But technically, given high resolution lenses and sensors - there's still room for improvement here - a digital capture is a truer depiction of the subject. Whether you want that or not is a matter of choice but it is more "real" than film ever was.

Fujiroid is rubbish.

The colours are too good, it's too consistent, and I HATE that black spot you get on white highlights. Total rubbish!

Of corse my motives for the love of polaroid are ulterior.

Polaroid 59, 809...now ya talking! Gimme the colour shift! Gimme the softness! Gimme the grain! Gimme the temperamental bitch, polaroid!

Hello Paul,

I agree completely. That lack of quality control in Polaroid materials is what made manipulation so easy to do. I am really struggling to get Fuji Instant to do image transfers . . . and those colours are just too good . . . clients want to take Fuji instant images with them from a location, whereas they would always give me back the Polaroids.

Hey Gordon, yes I remember sending proofs back and saying 'no the client wants it to look like the fujiroid' Always warmer.

Strangely enough, Polaroid polarizes people. You either love the colour or hate it.

For me though, it just doesn't come down to quality control. It's old technology and inherently comes with some beautiful characterisics like it's dramatic colour shifts from reciprocity. (without a neutral point -ha). It's low (they call it medium) contrast. It's instability. And of corse it's aging properties. You can really push it around and get completely different results from exposure alone.

I can dress up a digital image to look like a polaroid, but it's the random quality of a polaroid that is part of it's magic, and that you just can't recreate.

It's completely unique and there is nothing else like it...so yes I think it's a real tradgedy to loose such a tool, and one that has such historical signifcance to our medium.