Recently uncovered my uncle's old Polaroid OneStep BC Series camera, slightly modified some 600 Film (SX-70 Film is No Longer Made) to fit in it, and got it working again. I still need to play around with it a bit more to get some better shots with it, but holy crap the film packs are expensive!

I forgot how cool these things were, I used to play with my parents' Polaroid when I was a kid. It's a damn shame these kind of cameras are about to become extinct.

Anyone else still use Polaroid Instant Film cameras?

------------------

| Fiero Blog | NIFE Member |

"Rock over London, Rock on Chicago! Pontiac - We Build Excitement!" - Wesley Willis

use one? no. Have one? yes. They stopped selling the film for mine. They made it obsolete

i dont know why they would go obsolete hell its faster than digital and classic film take a shot print it up shake it a lil and you have your photo damn you gota love digital its killing everything even tv now.

quote Originally posted by pontiackid86: i dont know why they would go obsolete...

Except for the fact that the image quality sucked and the film was ultra-expensive, Polaroid cameras were great.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Except for the fact that the image quality sucked and the film was ultra-expensive, Polaroid cameras were great.

true but hell no waiting to give loved ones pics

quote Originally posted by pontiackid86: true but hell no waiting to give loved ones pics

???

I can take a digital picture and send it around the world to a hundred different people in a matter of minutes.

You can take a Polaroid picture and then what... You can give ONE person a smudged image. No thanks.

Not that I don't think the old Polaroid Land Cameras weren't rather neat. I have a model of similar vintage in mint condition packed away.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 12-18-2008).]

And in 10 years, the print will be yellow as heck. I have an album full of them from the 70s.

otoh, I recently bought 2 Pentax 105wr iqZoom film type cameras for $5 each (incl case) from a State of Ark surplus auction..
Kind of heavy, but they work perfect.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I recently bought 2 Pentax 105wr iqZoom film type cameras for $5 each (incl case) from a State of Ark surplus auction.. Kind of heavy, but they work perfect.

It's such a shame that millions upon millions of quality film cameras have been rendered basically worthless with the advent of digital cameras.

I always thought it would've been great if the industry could've developed a CMOS or CCD implant of some sort to be used in 35mm cameras, basically converting film cameras to digital. But alas, there was more money to be made by focusing 100% on creating all new digital cameras, most of which are saddled with inferior optics.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I recently bought 2 Pentax 105wr iqZoom film type cameras for $5 each (incl case) from a State of Ark surplus auction..

The Pentax I always liked was the 110 SLR they made for a few years, back in the early 80s (?). Never owned one, but they sure looked cool, and Pentax makes great lenses, so they might have taken some pretty good pictures. Of course, there's not much variety of film available anymore in 110 size...

quote Originally posted by Patrick: It's such a shame that millions upon millions of quality film cameras have been rendered basically worthless with the advent of digital cameras.

Tell me about it.... My Nikon N90S was about $1000 when I bought it in 1996, and recently I've seen them available used for $175. Its an outstanding camera, rock solid reliable, but nothing from the film/AF era is worth anything anymore.

Well, one aspect was before the digital age you could take pics of your wife or girlfriend sans clothes without having to go through the embarassment of having the film developed, before, at least some of the general public.
Not that I ever did that.

[This message has been edited by TXGOOD (edited 12-18-2008).]

I am old enough to have had a Polaroid when I was a kid and a teenager. To this day I still don't understand what the reason was for them beyond taking nekkid pics of each other.

The quality was horrible, the photos themselves didn't last long, the cameras were heavy, and the film packs were insanely expensive.

My grandmother, though, had one and she used it every day. She has so many Polaroid photos sitting around, none of which have an image anymore, though.

I still have one, but cant get it to work. Used to be the only way to take 'home' pictures

Polaroid filed for bankruptcy again today.
http://www.bloomberg.com/ap...phguZPJ8I&refer=home

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: I still have one, but cant get it to work. Used to be the only way to take 'home' pictures

You must have kept them in buisness!

My understanding is that they stopped all production of film recently.

The first pictures of naked women I ever saw was when a friend found some pictures of his mom while were looking for something else. lol He wasn't happy but I found them quite interesting.

I have three SX-70's, including a Sonar.



A quick search found TZ film on eBay, including a "Limited Edition" version called "ArTistic Z" for us image manipulators.

I got a SX-70 from a friend as a birthday gift back in the 70's. After opening the package and holding it in my hand I still had no clue what it was. I thought is was one of those fancy cigarette holders being rectangle in shape, but I never smoked.

I was urged to push a button on it and it popped open and I still was'nt sure what this was til I saw the lens. This was the model that folds down flat and appeared to have a leather covering on the casing.

I still have it in a camara bag with all the accessories. I didn'tknow they stopped making the film.

Camara and printer all in one. Brilliant concept and without a dark room.

I remember reading later on the attention Poloroid got at the annual trade show when they demonstrated the SX-70 , a modified version I believe, and everybody watched 6 or 7 cards being ejected from the camara onto a table and the competitors watched with (dropped jaw syndrome) as the pictures developed right before their eyes.

Maybe the Chinese will start making film for them, ..........under the table.



Spoon

[This message has been edited by Spoon (edited 12-20-2008).]

Maybe it won't have to be "under the table" beofre long. Polaroid filed Ch 11 earlier this week.

Brings back memories when I was a kid in the 80's, I even had the external flash, lol.

My foreman waiting to retire still uses the original polaroid camera instead of a digital camera and they even carry the package of film for him. Now that's funny.

Dave

I still have the Kodak version of the instant camera. They sold them until Polaroid shut them down for patent infringement. Kodak offered to replace them with their "disc" cameras (which were pretty pathetic). I decided to keep mine. Don't know why, it isn't worth anything.

Rick

I have that exact polaroid camera! I can't use it though since they don't make the film for it. I wouldn't know how to modify "newer" film to work.

I'm a photography major, and I love film and the darkroom. I also am learning to enjoy digital, but doing everything by hand will always have greater satisfaction for me. I'm afraid that soon film will be completely obsolete, and I'll have no choice but to be a 100% digital photographer.

PS ShockWave, I grew up in Gurnee :)

------------------

MOTORTOPIA

We are all spoiled since the arrival of digital cameras and imagery. I had a couple of Kodak's version of the cameras as I did work there for 35 years. At one time Kodak made the film for Polariod, but the company thaought they could do it better. ( a bonehead decision). I did lots of work on the film in the laboratory. EK was always a "little" slow on product line. They got out of the manufacture of 35mm caneras, just before the boom of 35 mm photography in the 60s. Then they developed the disc camera prior to developing the fine grain silver halide chemistry needed for the super small format. (My mother loved that disc camera as it was very portble, but only made decent 3x5 size photos). They developed the 25 mm format, with film in a canister and onced developed you got the can back with the prints. You needed a special box for your computer to read those developed film strips. I have several boxes of those canisters stuffed away. They were slow on the ramp up of the digital cameras. I have an EK CD player, that plays the EK developed format imagery. (Fortunately Photo Shop can read that format.)

I have a couple of EK digital cameras now. They work great. Todays tecnology changes faster than I can keep up with it.

quote Originally posted by Old Lar: They developed the 25 mm format, with film in a canister and onced developed you got the can back with the prints.

Would that be the APS format? That was touted as the future of photography, not too many years ago! It sure died quick as digital rose to the forefront. There are very, very few film choices still available in APS.

quote Originally posted by TXGOOD: Well, one aspect was before the digital age you could take pics of your wife or girlfriend sans clothes without having to go through the embarassment of having the film developed, before, at least some of the general public. Not that I ever did that.

Next thing you know, those pictures will be on the net.

quote Originally posted by sadie goad: I have that exact polaroid camera! I can't use it though since they don't make the film for it. I wouldn't know how to modify "newer" film to work.

You can use Polaroid 600 film in it with a very minor modification, that's how I've been using mine. On the back bottom edge of the film cartridge there are four plastic nubs that are meant to prevent 600 film from going into the SX-70 cameras, all you need to do is cut the two center nubs off until the film cartridge can slide right in.

[This message has been edited by ShockWave (edited 12-21-2008).]

Didn't Kodak lose to Polaroid in a patent infringement lawsuit a while back?

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Didn't Kodak lose to Polaroid in a patent infringement lawsuit a while back?

Yeah..Kodak paid big bucks to Polaroid and that was the last time Polaroid showed a profit. The film chemistry was essentially the same. The difference was that the Polaroid film the image was the top surface of the film backing. The Kodak version the image was done on the backside with the image under a "plastic" surface, making the image impervious to scratching or rubbing off. The courts determined that there was no "significant" difference and EK lost the suit.