4 ms·

Really? As a consumer, I hate that approach with a passion. I see how it makes sense from a business-perspective, but I think people are "onto it" at this poin

Really? As a consumer, I hate that approach with a passion. I see how it makes sense from a business-perspective, but I think people are "onto it" at this point. Instant film is inherently kind of expensive in either case, isn't it?

edvinbesic 11y ago
I agree here. Personally I am much more likely to snap a ton of photos if each shot costs me 10 cents versus 1 dollar.
- colmvp 11y ago
  Which I suppose why this device might appeal to people. With this, I could see myself being more thoughtful about the composition and questioning whether or not I want to take this photo
- peteforde 11y ago
  That could very well be true! However, Polaroid has never cost 10 cents (adjusted for inflation) and it's essentially impossible (no pun intended) for that to ever happen going forward. What I can say as a medium format film photographer is that having the constraint of knowing each shot has a real cost absolutely forces me to become a much better photographer. You just make each shot count and you'll end up remembering why you took each shot. You'll never end up with 250 shots of a house party with dozens of nearly identical shots ever again. You'll take one shot that captures a moment and then focus on living in that moment. People ask me if I would ever switch to a D-SLR. I smile and inform them that actually I've already upgraded from digital. You'd have to pry my cameras out of my dead hands.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    I think using medium format film forces you to become a better medium format film photographer. I upgraded from a heavy DSLR to an iPhone. Now I can take as many photos as I want without worrying about the weight or the cost. I can concentrate on composition without worrying about focus or aperture. I find taking a long series of spontaneous shots is better for making memories than taking one very thoughtfully composed shot. Sometimes my unconscious combined with luck is a better photographer than I am. Is this better than your approach? Is it worse? Neither. It's all photography.
    - peteforde 11y ago
      I mean, they have contests to determine a solvable answer to this question... :) But you're right. Whatever brings you the most happiness. I wish that you'd tried shooting film before jumping straight to iPhone. I shoot tons of photos on my iPhone, but there's a galaxy of difference between Instagram and the shots I'm proud of. For what it's worth, I was deeply skeptical of film to the point of actively derisive until I tried it. Seemed like cultist holdouts and then I had no choice but to acknowledge that I wasn't seeing the big picture. Send me your address and I'll send you a camera to borrow and some film to try out.
  - jeffdubin 11y ago
    Though I can appreciate where you're coming from, support from the casual consumer equals long-term viability. You need that buy-in if this is going to succeed. I worry that $3/shot film doesn't stand a chance if you don't also have the revenue that comes from the 250 crummy shots at a house party. Maybe there's a compromise point. Perhaps market a far cheaper ($.50/print) but slightly lower quality film alongside a professional, $3/print, higher quality film. That's the difference between this being adopted by the mass market and surviving long-term, versus being a short-lived boutique medium for wealthy artists only.
    - tlrobinson 11y ago
      I'd argue that part of the appeal of instant film is that it's not a mass market product any more. There's no way it could compete with the billion smartphone cameras every single person at that house party already has in their pocket 24/7. The appeal is novelty, nostalgia, simplicity, tactility, etc. It's in the same category as vinyl records.
peteforde 11y ago
Ha! I realize now that I must have sounded like a masochist. Here is my reasoning: 1. I love Polaroid and really want the Impossible Project to succeed in the long term. 2. The film is already expensive so perhaps if they increase the number of potential users they will keep the camera cost down and maybe even lower the price of the film. Ultimately, the film is so expensive that I see it as a sort of patronage instead of buying film. Otherwise it would feel gross.
Apofis 11y ago
Fucking $23.50 for a pack of 8 films plus S&H I assume. Fuck that shit.
- peteforde 11y ago
  Nobody is happy about the price of film. My suggestion is that you consider how - for a lover of the format - $4 a shot is a cheap price to pay for something that realistically should no longer exist, and that every pack is a kind of artistic patronage... a tithe to a barely profitable entity run by a skeleton crew that rarely ever even meet the folks that appreciate their efforts. It's a specialty item. Unless you lose your mind over banking fees and the price of artisanal chocolate in a boutique, you might be ignoring the bigger picture: no price is too great for something you love. Shipping new hardware is expensive, risky and very hard... but shipping old hardware is just bonkers because there's no practical upside by any typical investment standard.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  That's actually well within lines of what Polaroid film used to cost, if you adjust for inflation. The last time I bought any (late 80s/early 90s) it was about ten bucks a roll. I'm actually surprised they can sell it that cheap, given that they don't have anything like the economy of scale that Polaroid had in its heyday.

edvinbesic 11y ago

I agree here. Personally I am much more likely to snap a ton of photos if each shot costs me 10 cents versus 1 dollar.

colmvp 11y ago
Which I suppose why this device might appeal to people. With this, I could see myself being more thoughtful about the composition and questioning whether or not I want to take this photo
peteforde 11y ago
That could very well be true! However, Polaroid has never cost 10 cents (adjusted for inflation) and it's essentially impossible (no pun intended) for that to ever happen going forward. What I can say as a medium format film photographer is that having the constraint of knowing each shot has a real cost absolutely forces me to become a much better photographer. You just make each shot count and you'll end up remembering why you took each shot. You'll never end up with 250 shots of a house party with dozens of nearly identical shots ever again. You'll take one shot that captures a moment and then focus on living in that moment. People ask me if I would ever switch to a D-SLR. I smile and inform them that actually I've already upgraded from digital. You'd have to pry my cameras out of my dead hands.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  I think using medium format film forces you to become a better medium format film photographer. I upgraded from a heavy DSLR to an iPhone. Now I can take as many photos as I want without worrying about the weight or the cost. I can concentrate on composition without worrying about focus or aperture. I find taking a long series of spontaneous shots is better for making memories than taking one very thoughtfully composed shot. Sometimes my unconscious combined with luck is a better photographer than I am. Is this better than your approach? Is it worse? Neither. It's all photography.
  - peteforde 11y ago
    I mean, they have contests to determine a solvable answer to this question... :) But you're right. Whatever brings you the most happiness. I wish that you'd tried shooting film before jumping straight to iPhone. I shoot tons of photos on my iPhone, but there's a galaxy of difference between Instagram and the shots I'm proud of. For what it's worth, I was deeply skeptical of film to the point of actively derisive until I tried it. Seemed like cultist holdouts and then I had no choice but to acknowledge that I wasn't seeing the big picture. Send me your address and I'll send you a camera to borrow and some film to try out.
- jeffdubin 11y ago
  Though I can appreciate where you're coming from, support from the casual consumer equals long-term viability. You need that buy-in if this is going to succeed. I worry that $3/shot film doesn't stand a chance if you don't also have the revenue that comes from the 250 crummy shots at a house party. Maybe there's a compromise point. Perhaps market a far cheaper ($.50/print) but slightly lower quality film alongside a professional, $3/print, higher quality film. That's the difference between this being adopted by the mass market and surviving long-term, versus being a short-lived boutique medium for wealthy artists only.
  - tlrobinson 11y ago
    I'd argue that part of the appeal of instant film is that it's not a mass market product any more. There's no way it could compete with the billion smartphone cameras every single person at that house party already has in their pocket 24/7. The appeal is novelty, nostalgia, simplicity, tactility, etc. It's in the same category as vinyl records.

peteforde 11y ago

Ha! I realize now that I must have sounded like a masochist. Here is my reasoning: 1. I love Polaroid and really want the Impossible Project to succeed in the long term. 2. The film is already expensive so perhaps if they increase the number of potential users they will keep the camera cost down and maybe even lower the price of the film. Ultimately, the film is so expensive that I see it as a sort of patronage instead of buying film. Otherwise it would feel gross.

Apofis 11y ago

Fucking $23.50 for a pack of 8 films plus S&H I assume. Fuck that shit.

peteforde 11y ago
Nobody is happy about the price of film. My suggestion is that you consider how - for a lover of the format - $4 a shot is a cheap price to pay for something that realistically should no longer exist, and that every pack is a kind of artistic patronage... a tithe to a barely profitable entity run by a skeleton crew that rarely ever even meet the folks that appreciate their efforts. It's a specialty item. Unless you lose your mind over banking fees and the price of artisanal chocolate in a boutique, you might be ignoring the bigger picture: no price is too great for something you love. Shipping new hardware is expensive, risky and very hard... but shipping old hardware is just bonkers because there's no practical upside by any typical investment standard.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Turing_Machine 11y ago
That's actually well within lines of what Polaroid film used to cost, if you adjust for inflation. The last time I bought any (late 80s/early 90s) it was about ten bucks a roll. I'm actually surprised they can sell it that cheap, given that they don't have anything like the economy of scale that Polaroid had in its heyday.