From: "frank theriault"
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Scott Loveless <sdlovel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/22/08, Bruce Dayton <bkday...@daytonphoto.com> wrote:
>> I never felt like that brand name was all that special. My
>> experience over the years was that they did well with instant films,
>> but the image quality was always mediocre at best. It had a use, but
>> a quality brand name it was not.
>
> I like Karen Nakamura's definition. "A company with great products
> but absolutely horrendous marketing. The opposite of Microsoft
> Corporation."
I saw an exhibit last year (I think) of a bunch of Polaroids taken by
Kertesz, and they were amazing. Kind of small, but amazing.
I know that they found a tiny niche market among some artsy types, and
of course they could be handy in a studio back in the days of film. I
guess digital killed the latter use.
Whatever, their use among pros was very limited and narrow at best.
For the most part they were a novelty among family snapshooters (an
expensive novelty at that - price of film was horrendous). I also
didn't like the idea that each film packet had a little battery in it
to power the camera (so you never ran out of batteries) - not very
environmentally conscious.
I doubt they'll be missed much. Into the trash bin of history they go!
Back in the day, Polaroid 4x5s were used for pulling proofs before
committing E6.
And Type 55 produces gorgeous negatives. I still have a box in the fridge.
But most of all, I wonder what's going to happen to these bad boys?
http://www.polaroid.com/studio/20x24/rental/index.html
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
