Who says the Polaroid concept is dead.

[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.

Digital is not realistic too smooth and lifeless

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

lol. Not in my opinion. When I look at a scene in real life, I see accurate colors and no grain. That, to me is realistic. When I go back and see it again in 25 years, I see the true colors again, the Polaroid has changed colors quite a lot by then, the digital print is still accurate, that, to me is realistic.
I like some of the art of film, but realism is not its strong suit.

 

[vintagesnaps]

What the heck are you looking at? lol I don't think you can make assumptions either way. if you're getting a lot of grain you're either shooting in low light or using a crappy lens or doing something wrong! lol Unless you're going for that effect for some particular reason (because someone wants maybe a grainy grungy look for a dark dingy subject or mood or whatever).

I think it's a matter of figuring out how to use whatever technology you're using. I don't expect to get the same type or quality image with a Polaroid (with integral film) as I would with 35mm film or peel apart film or a digital camera. There is so much over processed poor quality digital imagery around that apparently poor quality can be done in a variety of ways! lol That's not limited to just film...

 

[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

lol. Not in my opinion. When I look at a scene in real life, I see accurate colors and no grain. That, to me is realistic. When I go back and see it again in 25 years, I see the true colors again, the Polaroid has changed colors quite a lot by then, the digital print is still accurate, that, to me is realistic.
I like some of the art of film, but realism is not its strong suit.

Very little grain in this
[https://gsgary.smugmug.com/Fuji-GW690/i-kwgMkvwIMG]

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[gsgary]

Fuji GW690 - Gary Clarke

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[Advanced Photo]

There is no image.

 

[compur]

lol. Not in my opinion. When I look at a scene in real life, I see accurate colors and no grain. That, to me is realistic. When I go back and see it again in 25 years, I see the true colors again, the Polaroid has changed colors quite a lot by then, the digital print is still accurate...

Where did you see a 25-year old digital print?

 

[gsgary]

There is no image.

 

[Advanced Photo]

There is no image.

That's not a bad picture for a polaroid instant picture.

 

[gsgary]

There is no image.

That's not a bad picture for a polaroid instant picture.

Just shows you don't know what your taking about it is not a Polaroid looks nothing like one

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[Advanced Photo]

There is no image.

That's not a bad picture for a polaroid instant picture.

Just shows you don't know what your taking about it is not a Polaroid looks nothing like one

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

Yep. I know. And your comment missed the fact that the picture you showed has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, namely the polaroid concept of instant photography which is precisely what my comment was designed to point out.
It seems I know more than you might guess.
Never assume what someone else knows based on your own misunderstanding of what you read.

 

[gsgary]

There is no image.

That's not a bad picture for a polaroid instant picture.

Just shows you don't know what your taking about it is not a Polaroid looks nothing like one

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

Yep. I know. And your comment missed the fact that the picture you showed has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, namely the polaroid concept of instant photography which is precisely what my comment was designed to point out.
It seems I know more than you might guess.
Never assume what someone else knows based on your own misunderstanding of what you read.

Just like we are waiting to see a 25 year old digital print

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[Advanced Photo]

Just like we are waiting to see a 25 year old digital print

It's nothing like that at all. Do you understand how print permanence is determined in the industry and what standards are used by all manufacturers of inks, dyes and papers (with the notable exception of Kodak that uses far less illumination at only 120 lux as opposed to the 450 lux used in the rest of the industry)? As someone that makes their living off of printing and selling photos I am fairly well versed in the standards and practices of the industry as a faded print does not do anything to add to my reputation and sell others that see the print on the idea of also buying one of my pieces. In this case "word of sight" is as important as word of mouth and maybe more so.
If you are not as well versed in the prediction of print permanence and the testing that is used to determine the estimated lifetime of a print whether it's a traditional dye sublimation print a dye inkjet print or a pigmented dye inkjet print (and asking to see a 25 year old digital print implies just that), here is some informative reading that all photographers should be familiar with if you ever want to print a photo you take.

Print Permanence

(note: Epson has, since this paper was written, made even greater strides in the area of print permanence and has demonstrated the ability of their UltraChrome HD pigmented inks to last for the equivalent of up to 200 years in industry standard viewing light.)

The life of digital prints can be further lengthened to greater times than the test results yield by the practice of framing the prints under glass. Normal glass has apx. 30% UV filtration, museum glass can extend the life even longer than the industry claims by filtering out up to 99% of the UV light and any glass will help reduce the effects of humidity and atmospheric contaminants.

By way of contrast, Polaroids are recommended to be store in the dark and preferably in a cool climate. (source) (source 2)
It's hard to enjoy a picture in a dark box. I prefer them on my wall with a good viewing light on them.

I fully understand that there are people who don't care about image quality or permanence and that, for them, is perfectly fine and the Polaroid instant picture is a wonderful thing. I prefer a higher quality image and a longer life for my prints and I prefer to be able to display them in a well lighted environment (it increases sales when folks can see the pictures I am selling them)

If I am going to take the time to conceptualize a photo, frame it how I like in the viewfinder and snap a shot, (even for the shots that are taken in an (pardon the pun) instant,) I'd like to have more options than a single print stored in a shoebox under a bed in the guestroom with the heat turned off. That's just my personal preference, and to those of you that don't see it the same way, I am glad you can enjoy your Polaroid shots. Happy Shooting, everyone!

 

[gsgary]

Just like we are waiting to see a 25 year old digital print

It's nothing like that at all. Do you understand how print permanence is determined in the industry and what standards are used by all manufacturers of inks, dyes and papers (with the notable exception of Kodak that uses far less illumination at only 120 lux as opposed to the 450 lux used in the rest of the industry)? As someone that makes their living off of printing and selling photos I am fairly well versed in the standards and practices of the industry as a faded print does not do anything to add to my reputation and sell others that see the print on the idea of also buying one of my pieces. In this case "word of sight" is as important as word of mouth and maybe more so.
If you are not as well versed in the prediction of print permanence and the testing that is used to determine the estimated lifetime of a print whether it's a traditional dye sublimation print a dye inkjet print or a pigmented dye inkjet print (and asking to see a 25 year old digital print implies just that), here is some informative reading that all photographers should be familiar with if you ever want to print a photo you take.

Print Permanence

(note: Epson has, since this paper was written, made even greater strides in the area of print permanence and has demonstrated the ability of their UltraChrome HD pigmented inks to last for the equivalent of up to 200 years in industry standard viewing light.)

The life of digital prints can be further lengthened to greater times than the test results yield by the practice of framing the prints under glass. Normal glass has apx. 30% UV filtration, museum glass can extend the life even longer than the industry claims by filtering out up to 99% of the UV light and any glass will help reduce the effects of humidity and atmospheric contaminants.

By way of contrast, Polaroids are recommended to be store in the dark and preferably in a cool climate. (source) (source 2)
It's hard to enjoy a picture in a dark box. I prefer them on my wall with a good viewing light on them.

I fully understand that there are people who don't care about image quality or permanence and that, for them, is perfectly fine and the Polaroid instant picture is a wonderful thing. I prefer a higher quality image and a longer life for my prints and I prefer to be able to display them in a well lighted environment (it increases sales when folks can see the pictures I am selling them)

If I am going to take the time to conceptualize a photo, frame it how I like in the viewfinder and snap a shot, (even for the shots that are taken in an (pardon the pun) instant,) I'd like to have more options than a single print stored in a shoebox under a bed in the guestroom with the heat turned off. That's just my personal preference, and to those of you that don't see it the same way, I am glad you can enjoy your Polaroid shots. Happy Shooting, everyone!

I print in the darkroom and produce prints that will last longer than digital prints, silver prints are proven digital is not

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[Advanced Photo]

If you bothered reading it was stated that If stored in the dark, with low humidity, traditional silver halide prints may last from 50 to more than 100 years. If exposed to light, the colors will deteriorate at a more rapid pace. This deterioration will vary widely between manufacturers’ products and the levels of illumination and ultraviolet light to which a print has been exposed.

It was also stated that Epson has designed a pigmented dye and paper combination that can last up to 200 years.

Last time I checked, 200 > 100.

So, to paraphrase your own (ridiculous) question, How many of your prints have lasted for 100 years so far?

Silly isn't it?

It seems from this conversation that what I can teach, some people can't learn.
hmmm... new signature idea

 

[vintagesnaps]

B&W silver images and the negatives last indefinitely it seems. Now color, not so much, there must have been some funky things going on with film and chemistry in the '80s.

But anything done digitally, I don't think we can really know yet. They can say the ink will last a hundred years or more but of course we won't find out will we? And if the technology changes, then what exists now won't exist unless it's transferred to any new technology that develops. The thing is, it doesn't exist in a physical way unless you make prints. So if the technology is gone, so are the pictures in the existing format.

We know early B&W photos and tintypes etc. are still around from at least the civil war. Very early in photography, some images weren't stable and those that survived have to be protected now. The only example that comes to mind offhand is the Niepce taken of his roof that's in a museum in Texas and on display on a limited basis then is stored in darkness. But I don't think photos need any more protection than anything does from long exposure to sunlight (fabric can fade, it just depends on how lightfast dyes are, etc.). I think there are a number of variables to consider with any process.