Who says the Polaroid concept is dead.

[Advanced Photo]

why can't they just make a small inkjet printer attached to a digital camera.

Why can't they just make a Polaroid SX70?

They did, the target audience moved on to other things and there was only a tiny fraction of the market left, not nearly enough to justify the costs of running large factories designed to cater to a very large audience. The shareholders would have sold in droves had things continued as they were.

 

[cgw]

That's my favorite... it's a joy to use.

Polaroid's SX-70: The Art and Science of the Nearly Impossible

 

[vintagesnaps]

Edwin Land was the man!

Wonder if he would have ever thought people would still be using them today? Not that all that many people do, but still. Besides buying one I had to have a 'back up', and a Stormtrooper, and maybe I need a Porvair model...

 

[Advanced Photo]

Instant film: Take a shot and wait around 4 minutes for a rather poor quality image to appear in a 4x4 size print. Cost: $1.00 to $3.00. A print that does not age particularly well.

Digital: Take a shot and wait less than a minute for a very high quality photo to appear in an 8x10 (or 8.5 x 11) size print (with the option to print it at much larger sizes up to 44" x any length). Cost: a few cents for an 8x10. A print that looks as good in 200 years as it does today.

Hmmmm.... decisions, decisions...

 

[compur]

Yeah, digital shooters are lucky. Their cameras, lenses, computers, printers, ink and paper cost nothing. The stores give them away for free. All you have to do is hand them a little piece of plastic for a few seconds and bingo!

The other day I bought an SX70 at an estate sale for $5 and a pack of film will cost me $15. That's a whole $20 I will have wasted when I could have had a new digital camera outfit, computer, printer, paper, and ink for nothing!

I sure wish I was as smart as those digital guys who shoot all the photos they want for free! Film photography is so expensive!!!!

 

[Piccell]

Yeah, digital shooters are lucky. Their cameras, lenses, computers, printers, ink and paper cost nothing. The stores give them away for free. All you have to do is hand them a little piece of plastic for a few seconds and bingo!

The other day I bought an SX70 at an estate sale for $5 and a pack of film will cost me $15. That's a whole $20 I will have wasted when I could have had a new digital camera outfit, computer, printer, paper, and ink for nothing!

I sure wish I was as smart as those digital guys who shoot all the photos they want for free! Film photography is so expensive!!!!

Digital pushed film to the small dark corners of the world without a fight for good reason.

 

[table1349]

The Future of Film Photography

Why Film Is Not Dead: Meet The Camera Shop that Specialise Only in Film Photography | Fstoppers

Fashion Photographers Return to Film

 

[Piccell]

It's a little less than it once was don't you think?

 

[table1349]

2016 January Cipa report: Digital camera sales dropped by 20%! - mirrorlessrumors

DSLR & Mirrorless Camera Market Shrinking Rapidly | cinema5D

 

[Piccell]

2016 January Cipa report: Digital camera sales dropped by 20%! - mirrorlessrumors

DSLR & Mirrorless Camera Market Shrinking Rapidly | cinema5D

Yep, the market is now stabilizing again after so many moved to digital all at once, the market was saturated for a while and went into a decline. Markets generally self correct when there is a huge shift to a new product.

 

[cgw]

The Future of Film Photography

Why Film Is Not Dead: Meet The Camera Shop that Specialise Only in Film Photography | Fstoppers

Fashion Photographers Return to Film

Exceptions that don't exactly prove the rule--sorry. If you're lucky enough to live/work in a city whose film infrastructure is still intact, film can work; if not, you're looking at expense, delays, and inconvenience clients aren't usually willing to accept. Pricey film and scarce lab services(processing/scanning/printing) discourage amateurs whose commitment to film is iffy. Not to say there aren't workarounds--I've gotten good at those--but film use just isn't picking up enough in many large N. American cities to resuscitate what we've lost since 2000.

 

[gsgary]

Instant film: Take a shot and wait around 4 minutes for a rather poor quality image to appear in a 4x4 size print. Cost: $1.00 to $3.00. A print that does not age particularly well.

Digital: Take a shot and wait less than a minute for a very high quality photo to appear in an 8x10 (or 8.5 x 11) size print (with the option to print it at much larger sizes up to 44" x any length). Cost: a few cents for an 8x10. A print that looks as good in 200 years as it does today.

Hmmmm.... decisions, decisions...

But if you know what you are doing you can turn it into a 4x4 negative and print bigger than your digital [emoji1]

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[gsgary]

Instant film: Take a shot and wait around 4 minutes for a rather poor quality image to appear in a 4x4 size print. Cost: $1.00 to $3.00. A print that does not age particularly well.

Digital: Take a shot and wait less than a minute for a very high quality photo to appear in an 8x10 (or 8.5 x 11) size print (with the option to print it at much larger sizes up to 44" x any length). Cost: a few cents for an 8x10. A print that looks as good in 200 years as it does today.

Hmmmm.... decisions, decisions...

That's great if you want a plastic looking photo

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[Advanced Photo]

Instant film: Take a shot and wait around 4 minutes for a rather poor quality image to appear in a 4x4 size print. Cost: $1.00 to $3.00. A print that does not age particularly well.

Digital: Take a shot and wait less than a minute for a very high quality photo to appear in an 8x10 (or 8.5 x 11) size print (with the option to print it at much larger sizes up to 44" x any length). Cost: a few cents for an 8x10. A print that looks as good in 200 years as it does today.

Hmmmm.... decisions, decisions...

That's great if you want a plastic looking photo

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

If by plastic you mean realistic, then yep.

 

[gsgary]

Instant film: Take a shot and wait around 4 minutes for a rather poor quality image to appear in a 4x4 size print. Cost: $1.00 to $3.00. A print that does not age particularly well.

Digital: Take a shot and wait less than a minute for a very high quality photo to appear in an 8x10 (or 8.5 x 11) size print (with the option to print it at much larger sizes up to 44" x any length). Cost: a few cents for an 8x10. A print that looks as good in 200 years as it does today.

Hmmmm.... decisions, decisions...

That's great if you want a plastic looking photo

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

If by plastic you mean realistic, then yep.

Digital is not realistic too smooth and lifeless

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk