Hello - I'm on a mission..!

[Nikon photographer]

Kodak did actually make film for Polaroid cameras through 1969.

True, they were contracted by Polaroid to manufacture film, but it never had Kodak printed on the back of the film.

 

[Nikon photographer]

Or, it could be one of the short-lived Kodak instant cameras after they stopped making film for Polaroid and decided to compete instead.

No, if you've seen a photo from the short lived Kodak instant cameras you would have known the prints were rectangular with a heavy white border at the bottom of the print.

 

[limr]

No, if you've seen a photo from the short lived Kodak instant cameras you would have known the prints were rectangular with a heavy white border at the bottom of the print.

Well, at least that's finally more definitive reasoning.

 

[gk fotografie]

I disagree with the contention that it's "impossible." Land Cameras are absolutely capable of the quality and sharpness in the OP's photo.

(Also, the OP said that there were black dots, not holes.)

All taken with a Land Camera 100:


Victrola by limrodrigues, on Flickr


Armchairs by limrodrigues, on Flickr

And if the argument was that the above two shots were taken with different film (Fuji), here's one taken with the film available in the early 70s. Yes, that's me, holding the camera upside down:


Day 321 - As a child by limrodrigues, on Flickr

What exactly is your point? Nowhere does it say that a Polaroid Land camera cannot deliver sharp photos, on the contrary, very clear to me you misunderstood. Where do I say such a thing, I don't read that anywhere myself. If you look closely at the square photo, the sharpness/quality is not really great, so: 'Given the quality/sharpness of the image, this could indeed be a print made from a 126 format', I'm in no way talking about Polaroid Land cameras!

As a final point: the date and logo stamping on the back of this photo was done this way exclusively, worldwide, in Kodak's photo labs during printing. Kodak commercial/retail photo papers get a completely different imprint created with an other printing process, so to me this square print is just a regular Kodak print and no peel-off Kodak print. In my eyes this is a completely pointless discussion that the OP has absolutely no use for, so I'm out.

 

[jeffashman]

Howdy and welcome!

 

[Soocom1]

So Ill weigh in on this.

Simply because its a square image doesn't mean it was a square negative, nor peel apart.

The little marks atop are index marks that were used not only for manufacturing but processing.
Fox Photo used that system and had automated print machines, why you had Fox Photo ONE HOUR in place then. Fox was purchased by Kodak and their stamp went on the system.

I am NOT saying it IS a Fox Photo special, but it looks an awful lot like one.

My dad only shot his Minolta, and sometimes ordered square pics for certain purposes.

Anyone remember these?

 

[limr]

So Ill weigh in on this.

Simply because its a square image doesn't mean it was a square negative, nor peel apart.

The little marks atop are index marks that were used not only for manufacturing but processing.
Fox Photo used that system and had automated print machines, why you had Fox Photo ONE HOUR in place then. Fox was purchased by Kodak and their stamp went on the system.

I am NOT saying it IS a Fox Photo special, but it looks an awful lot like one.

My dad only shot his Minolta, and sometimes ordered square pics for certain purposes.


View attachment 260238

Anyone remember these?

Oh my god, the Fotomat kiosks!!

 

[snowbear]

Fotomat!
Brings back a memory, but not photo related. As a 16-year old "kid" riding on fire engines and the occasional ambulance, I remember a call to the local Fotomat. A young lady working there had fight with her boyfriend, and rocket scientist that he was, he decided to punch the plate glass door.