Re: Another Casualty.
It gives you two 35 mm imagesJoe -- Original message -- From: Joseph McAllister > Is yours the 90 degree version that gives about a 2 x 3 image, or the > straight back version that is a strictly 35mm image? > > On Dec 27, 2008, at 09:19 , 27...@comcast.net wrote: > > > Guess, I will not be able to get any more film for my Polaroid back > > for my LX.. I will take a photo of it, so the list members can see > > what it looks like, if any of you did not that there was made for > > the LX. It was made the same time when the Nikon F3 version was also > > out. > > But however I still have frozen Polaroid film number's 667 and 669 > > in the fridge. Joe > > Joseph McAllister > pentax...@mac.com > > http://gallery.me.com/jomac > http://web.me.com/jomac/show.me/Blog/Blog.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. -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
Is yours the 90 degree version that gives about a 2 x 3 image, or the straight back version that is a strictly 35mm image? On Dec 27, 2008, at 09:19 , 27...@comcast.net wrote: Guess, I will not be able to get any more film for my Polaroid back for my LX.. I will take a photo of it, so the list members can see what it looks like, if any of you did not that there was made for the LX. It was made the same time when the Nikon F3 version was also out. But however I still have frozen Polaroid film number's 667 and 669 in the fridge. Joe Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com http://gallery.me.com/jomac http://web.me.com/jomac/show.me/Blog/Blog.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.
Re: Another Casualty.
Thanks, Adam..Joe http://photo.net/photos/pjjdxn -- Original message -- From: "Adam Maas" > Check the Fuji FP100C, IIRC it's available in a compatible size (I > know it works in the Polaroid pack film holders for MF) > > -Adam > > On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 12:19 PM, <27...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Guess, I will not be able to get any more film for my Polaroid back for my > LX.. I will take a photo of it, so the list members can see what it looks > like, > if any of you did not that there was made for the LX. It was made the same > time > when the Nikon F3 version was also out. > > But however I still have frozen Polaroid film number's 667 and 669 in the > fridge. Joe > > > > -- Original message -- > > From: "Steve Desjardins" > >> Adorama has a really good price on a Polaroid camera. > >> > >> http://www.adorama.com/PDONE6U.html?emailprice=t > >> > >> May want to drop it a bit more ;-) > >> > >> >>> 12/26/2008 2:42 PM >>> > >> > >> > >> Anthony Farr wrote: > >> > > > >> > > There was also the pre-Powerpoint blueprint film, whose name I > >> forget. > >> > > > >> > > >> > That'll be dyeline paper, a diazo process. Ilfochrome / Cibachrome > >> also > >> > used azo dyes, which are dyes that whose chemical bonds somehow break > >> down > >> > when exposed to strong or UV light, leaving the unexposed part to be > >> > developed to an autopositive image (same ultimate result as reversal > >> but a > >> > different chemical process). Dyeline paper is developed in ammonia > >> fumes. > >> > If you handle any freshly developed dyeline paper you MUST NOT handle > >> any > >> > other film or photographic paper until you've thoroughly washed your > >> hands, > >> > because ammonia will completely fog them, whether they're exposed or > >> not. > >> > > >> > regards, Anthony > >> > >> Sorry, not being clear. There was a Polaroid 35mm film that output > >> similar images to cyanotpye. White image on a blue background. It was > >> used to produce slides of writing for use in AV presentations. It was > >> terrifyingly expensive and, before the days of TTL flash, you had to > >> sacrifice a film in testing to obtin correct exposure. > >> > >> > > >> > > -Original Message- > >> > > From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On > >> Behalf Of > >> > > m.9.wil...@ntlworld.com > >> > > Sent: Wednesday, 24 December 2008 9:20 PM > >> > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> > > Subject: Re: Another Casualty. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > John Sessoms wrote: > >> > > > From: John Francis > >> > > > > I believe there was also Polaroid-branded 35mm roll film. > >> > > > > >> > > > They developed and marketed a 35mm instant film that didn't do > >> very well > >> > > > in the market. IIRC, it was transparency film available in both > >> color > >> > > > and B&W versions. > >> > > > > >> > > > Later they offered Polaroid brand C-41 process 35mm film, and may > >> have > >> > > > offered an E6 35mm film as well. > >> > > > > >> > > > I'm sure about the C-41 version because I have a roll in the > >> freezer; > >> > > > not so sure about the E6. > >> > > > >> > > There was also the pre-Powerpoint blueprint film, whose name I > >> forget. > >> > All of the > >> > > Polaroid 35mm stuff was self (and dry) process, to give you the > >> quickest > >> > result. > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > 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. > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> > PDML@pdml.net > >> > h
Re: Another Casualty.
Check the Fuji FP100C, IIRC it's available in a compatible size (I know it works in the Polaroid pack film holders for MF) -Adam On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 12:19 PM, <27...@comcast.net> wrote: > Guess, I will not be able to get any more film for my Polaroid back for my > LX.. I will take a photo of it, so the list members can see what it looks > like, if any of you did not that there was made for the LX. It was made the > same time when the Nikon F3 version was also out. > But however I still have frozen Polaroid film number's 667 and 669 in the > fridge. Joe > > -- Original message -- > From: "Steve Desjardins" >> Adorama has a really good price on a Polaroid camera. >> >> http://www.adorama.com/PDONE6U.html?emailprice=t >> >> May want to drop it a bit more ;-) >> >> >>> 12/26/2008 2:42 PM >>> >> >> >> Anthony Farr wrote: >> > > >> > > There was also the pre-Powerpoint blueprint film, whose name I >> forget. >> > > >> > >> > That'll be dyeline paper, a diazo process. Ilfochrome / Cibachrome >> also >> > used azo dyes, which are dyes that whose chemical bonds somehow break >> down >> > when exposed to strong or UV light, leaving the unexposed part to be >> > developed to an autopositive image (same ultimate result as reversal >> but a >> > different chemical process). Dyeline paper is developed in ammonia >> fumes. >> > If you handle any freshly developed dyeline paper you MUST NOT handle >> any >> > other film or photographic paper until you've thoroughly washed your >> hands, >> > because ammonia will completely fog them, whether they're exposed or >> not. >> > >> > regards, Anthony >> >> Sorry, not being clear. There was a Polaroid 35mm film that output >> similar images to cyanotpye. White image on a blue background. It was >> used to produce slides of writing for use in AV presentations. It was >> terrifyingly expensive and, before the days of TTL flash, you had to >> sacrifice a film in testing to obtin correct exposure. >> >> > >> > > -Original Message- >> > > From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On >> Behalf Of >> > > m.9.wil...@ntlworld.com >> > > Sent: Wednesday, 24 December 2008 9:20 PM >> > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> > > Subject: Re: Another Casualty. >> > > >> > > >> > > John Sessoms wrote: >> > > > From: John Francis >> > > > > I believe there was also Polaroid-branded 35mm roll film. >> > > > >> > > > They developed and marketed a 35mm instant film that didn't do >> very well >> > > > in the market. IIRC, it was transparency film available in both >> color >> > > > and B&W versions. >> > > > >> > > > Later they offered Polaroid brand C-41 process 35mm film, and may >> have >> > > > offered an E6 35mm film as well. >> > > > >> > > > I'm sure about the C-41 version because I have a roll in the >> freezer; >> > > > not so sure about the E6. >> > > >> > > There was also the pre-Powerpoint blueprint film, whose name I >> forget. >> > All of the >> > > Polaroid 35mm stuff was self (and dry) process, to give you the >> quickest >> > result. >> > > >> > > -- >> > > 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. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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. >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> !SIG:495533bb264831190184214! >> >> >> -- >> 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. > > > -- > 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. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- 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.
RE: Another Casualty.
Guess, I will not be able to get any more film for my Polaroid back for my LX.. I will take a photo of it, so the list members can see what it looks like, if any of you did not that there was made for the LX. It was made the same time when the Nikon F3 version was also out. But however I still have frozen Polaroid film number's 667 and 669 in the fridge. Joe -- Original message -- From: "Steve Desjardins" > Adorama has a really good price on a Polaroid camera. > > http://www.adorama.com/PDONE6U.html?emailprice=t > > May want to drop it a bit more ;-) > > >>> 12/26/2008 2:42 PM >>> > > > Anthony Farr wrote: > > > > > > There was also the pre-Powerpoint blueprint film, whose name I > forget. > > > > > > > That'll be dyeline paper, a diazo process. Ilfochrome / Cibachrome > also > > used azo dyes, which are dyes that whose chemical bonds somehow break > down > > when exposed to strong or UV light, leaving the unexposed part to be > > developed to an autopositive image (same ultimate result as reversal > but a > > different chemical process). Dyeline paper is developed in ammonia > fumes. > > If you handle any freshly developed dyeline paper you MUST NOT handle > any > > other film or photographic paper until you've thoroughly washed your > hands, > > because ammonia will completely fog them, whether they're exposed or > not. > > > > regards, Anthony > > Sorry, not being clear. There was a Polaroid 35mm film that output > similar images to cyanotpye. White image on a blue background. It was > used to produce slides of writing for use in AV presentations. It was > terrifyingly expensive and, before the days of TTL flash, you had to > sacrifice a film in testing to obtin correct exposure. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On > Behalf Of > > > m.9.wil...@ntlworld.com > > > Sent: Wednesday, 24 December 2008 9:20 PM > > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > Subject: Re: Another Casualty. > > > > > > > > > John Sessoms wrote: > > > > From: John Francis > > > > > I believe there was also Polaroid-branded 35mm roll film. > > > > > > > > They developed and marketed a 35mm instant film that didn't do > very well > > > > in the market. IIRC, it was transparency film available in both > color > > > > and B&W versions. > > > > > > > > Later they offered Polaroid brand C-41 process 35mm film, and may > have > > > > offered an E6 35mm film as well. > > > > > > > > I'm sure about the C-41 version because I have a roll in the > freezer; > > > > not so sure about the E6. > > > > > > There was also the pre-Powerpoint blueprint film, whose name I > forget. > > All of the > > > Polaroid 35mm stuff was self (and dry) process, to give you the > quickest > > result. > > > > > > -- > > > 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. > > > > > > -- > > 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. > > > -- > 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. > > !SIG:495533bb264831190184214! > > > -- > 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. -- 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.
RE: Another Casualty.
Perhaps they haven't gotten the news yet... -Original Message- >From: Steve Desjardins >Sent: Dec 26, 2008 8:14 PM >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: RE: Another Casualty. > >Adorama has a really good price on a Polaroid camera. > >http://www.adorama.com/PDONE6U.html?emailprice=t > >May want to drop it a bit more ;-) > >>>> 12/26/2008 2:42 PM >>> > > > Anthony Farr wrote: >> > >> > There was also the pre-Powerpoint blueprint film, whose name I >forget. >> > >> >> That'll be dyeline paper, a diazo process. Ilfochrome / Cibachrome >also >> used azo dyes, which are dyes that whose chemical bonds somehow break >down >> when exposed to strong or UV light, leaving the unexposed part to be >> developed to an autopositive image (same ultimate result as reversal >but a >> different chemical process). Dyeline paper is developed in ammonia >fumes. >> If you handle any freshly developed dyeline paper you MUST NOT handle >any >> other film or photographic paper until you've thoroughly washed your >hands, >> because ammonia will completely fog them, whether they're exposed or >not. >> >> regards, Anthony > >Sorry, not being clear. There was a Polaroid 35mm film that output >similar images to cyanotpye. White image on a blue background. It was >used to produce slides of writing for use in AV presentations. It was >terrifyingly expensive and, before the days of TTL flash, you had to >sacrifice a film in testing to obtin correct exposure. > >> >> > -Original Message- >> > From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On >Behalf Of >> > m.9.wil...@ntlworld.com >> > Sent: Wednesday, 24 December 2008 9:20 PM >> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> > Subject: Re: Another Casualty. >> > >> > >> > John Sessoms wrote: >> > > From: John Francis >> > > > I believe there was also Polaroid-branded 35mm roll film. >> > > >> > > They developed and marketed a 35mm instant film that didn't do >very well >> > > in the market. IIRC, it was transparency film available in both >color >> > > and B&W versions. >> > > >> > > Later they offered Polaroid brand C-41 process 35mm film, and may >have >> > > offered an E6 35mm film as well. >> > > >> > > I'm sure about the C-41 version because I have a roll in the >freezer; >> > > not so sure about the E6. >> > >> > There was also the pre-Powerpoint blueprint film, whose name I >forget. >> All of the >> > Polaroid 35mm stuff was self (and dry) process, to give you the >quickest >> result. >> > >> > -- >> > 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. >> >> >> -- >> 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. > > >-- >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. > >!SIG:495533bb264831190184214! > > >-- >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. -- 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.
RE: Another Casualty.
Adorama has a really good price on a Polaroid camera. http://www.adorama.com/PDONE6U.html?emailprice=t May want to drop it a bit more ;-) >>> 12/26/2008 2:42 PM >>> Anthony Farr wrote: > > > > There was also the pre-Powerpoint blueprint film, whose name I forget. > > > > That'll be dyeline paper, a diazo process. Ilfochrome / Cibachrome also > used azo dyes, which are dyes that whose chemical bonds somehow break down > when exposed to strong or UV light, leaving the unexposed part to be > developed to an autopositive image (same ultimate result as reversal but a > different chemical process). Dyeline paper is developed in ammonia fumes. > If you handle any freshly developed dyeline paper you MUST NOT handle any > other film or photographic paper until you've thoroughly washed your hands, > because ammonia will completely fog them, whether they're exposed or not. > > regards, Anthony Sorry, not being clear. There was a Polaroid 35mm film that output similar images to cyanotpye. White image on a blue background. It was used to produce slides of writing for use in AV presentations. It was terrifyingly expensive and, before the days of TTL flash, you had to sacrifice a film in testing to obtin correct exposure. > > > -Original Message- > > From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > > m.9.wil...@ntlworld.com > > Sent: Wednesday, 24 December 2008 9:20 PM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: Another Casualty. > > > > > > John Sessoms wrote: > > > From: John Francis > > > > I believe there was also Polaroid-branded 35mm roll film. > > > > > > They developed and marketed a 35mm instant film that didn't do very well > > > in the market. IIRC, it was transparency film available in both color > > > and B&W versions. > > > > > > Later they offered Polaroid brand C-41 process 35mm film, and may have > > > offered an E6 35mm film as well. > > > > > > I'm sure about the C-41 version because I have a roll in the freezer; > > > not so sure about the E6. > > > > There was also the pre-Powerpoint blueprint film, whose name I forget. > All of the > > Polaroid 35mm stuff was self (and dry) process, to give you the quickest > result. > > > > -- > > 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. > > > -- > 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. -- 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. !SIG:495533bb264831190184214! -- 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.
RE: Another Casualty.
Anthony Farr wrote: > > > > There was also the pre-Powerpoint blueprint film, whose name I forget. > > > > That'll be dyeline paper, a diazo process. Ilfochrome / Cibachrome also > used azo dyes, which are dyes that whose chemical bonds somehow break down > when exposed to strong or UV light, leaving the unexposed part to be > developed to an autopositive image (same ultimate result as reversal but a > different chemical process). Dyeline paper is developed in ammonia fumes. > If you handle any freshly developed dyeline paper you MUST NOT handle any > other film or photographic paper until you've thoroughly washed your hands, > because ammonia will completely fog them, whether they're exposed or not. > > regards, Anthony Sorry, not being clear. There was a Polaroid 35mm film that output similar images to cyanotpye. White image on a blue background. It was used to produce slides of writing for use in AV presentations. It was terrifyingly expensive and, before the days of TTL flash, you had to sacrifice a film in testing to obtin correct exposure. > > > -Original Message- > > From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > > m.9.wil...@ntlworld.com > > Sent: Wednesday, 24 December 2008 9:20 PM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: Another Casualty. > > > > > > John Sessoms wrote: > > > From: John Francis > > > > I believe there was also Polaroid-branded 35mm roll film. > > > > > > They developed and marketed a 35mm instant film that didn't do very well > > > in the market. IIRC, it was transparency film available in both color > > > and B&W versions. > > > > > > Later they offered Polaroid brand C-41 process 35mm film, and may have > > > offered an E6 35mm film as well. > > > > > > I'm sure about the C-41 version because I have a roll in the freezer; > > > not so sure about the E6. > > > > There was also the pre-Powerpoint blueprint film, whose name I forget. > All of the > > Polaroid 35mm stuff was self (and dry) process, to give you the quickest > result. > > > > -- > > 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. > > > -- > 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. -- 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.
RE: Another Casualty.
> > There was also the pre-Powerpoint blueprint film, whose name I forget. > That'll be dyeline paper, a diazo process. Ilfochrome / Cibachrome also used azo dyes, which are dyes that whose chemical bonds somehow break down when exposed to strong or UV light, leaving the unexposed part to be developed to an autopositive image (same ultimate result as reversal but a different chemical process). Dyeline paper is developed in ammonia fumes. If you handle any freshly developed dyeline paper you MUST NOT handle any other film or photographic paper until you've thoroughly washed your hands, because ammonia will completely fog them, whether they're exposed or not. regards, Anthony > -Original Message- > From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > m.9.wil...@ntlworld.com > Sent: Wednesday, 24 December 2008 9:20 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Another Casualty. > > > John Sessoms wrote: > > From: John Francis > > > I believe there was also Polaroid-branded 35mm roll film. > > > > They developed and marketed a 35mm instant film that didn't do very well > > in the market. IIRC, it was transparency film available in both color > > and B&W versions. > > > > Later they offered Polaroid brand C-41 process 35mm film, and may have > > offered an E6 35mm film as well. > > > > I'm sure about the C-41 version because I have a roll in the freezer; > > not so sure about the E6. > > There was also the pre-Powerpoint blueprint film, whose name I forget. All of the > Polaroid 35mm stuff was self (and dry) process, to give you the quickest result. > > -- > 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. -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
They'll just have to digital, just like everbody else... -Original Message- >From: John Sessoms >Sent: Dec 23, 2008 7:04 PM >To: pdml@pdml.net >Subject: Re: Another Casualty. > >From: "frank theriault" >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: >>> > On 12/22/08, Bruce Dayton 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. -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
John Sessoms wrote: > From: John Francis > > I believe there was also Polaroid-branded 35mm roll film. > > They developed and marketed a 35mm instant film that didn't do very well > in the market. IIRC, it was transparency film available in both color > and B&W versions. > > Later they offered Polaroid brand C-41 process 35mm film, and may have > offered an E6 35mm film as well. > > I'm sure about the C-41 version because I have a roll in the freezer; > not so sure about the E6. There was also the pre-Powerpoint blueprint film, whose name I forget. All of the Polaroid 35mm stuff was self (and dry) process, to give you the quickest result. -- 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.
RE: Another Casualty.
Bob W wrote: > > > > I doubt they'll be missed much. Into the trash bin of > > history they go! > > > > I know several artist types who are gutted that the film is no longer > > being made. > > > > Once their stocks run out, there goes that particular form of > > "expression". > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dave > > I've been a bit upset since the demise of wet collodion. You Londoners. Any excuse for an ether party. -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 07:42:51PM -0500, Scott Loveless wrote: > On 12/23/08, John Sessoms wrote: > > They developed and marketed a 35mm instant film that didn't do very well in > > the market. IIRC, it was transparency film available in both color and B&W > > versions. > > I think you needed one of their processing machines, a little hand > cranked device, to process your film. I could be wrong. That fits my recollection (in my case it would be the colour film). Next time I run across the couple of rolls of images I have from those days I'll see if either of them was shot using Polaroid film. I know I've still got an 8x10 somewhere, too; it was holding up just fine the last time I came across it (some 15-20 years after exposure). -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
David Savage wrote: 2008/12/24 frank theriault : I doubt they'll be missed much. Into the trash bin of history they go! I know several artist types who are gutted that the film is no longer being made. Once their stocks run out, there goes that particular form of "expression". Cheers, Dave Fashionistas love it. I quite like the aesthetic too, but I've never understood how, in the fashion industry, where the colour of the clothes are so important, that polaroid colour shifts became so loved. I remember reading this a while ago, but it took me a some time to find it. Pity the video is not online anymore. It was a nice little piece. http://blogs.wsj.com/runway/2008/09/11/fashion-industry-mourns-last-season-of-polaroid/ D -- der...@iinet.net.au http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc -- 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.
RE: Another Casualty.
-Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Scott Loveless Sent: Wednesday, 24 December 2008 10:43 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Another Casualty. On 12/23/08, John Sessoms wrote: > They developed and marketed a 35mm instant film that didn't do very well in > the market. IIRC, it was transparency film available in both color and B&W > versions. I think you needed one of their processing machines, a little hand cranked device, to process your film. I could be wrong. You're right Scott, the developing device was bought separately, and was horrendously expensive, IIRC. The quality of the film was pretty bad, clumpy "grain", but quite good colours. I shot my last roll only about a year ago, but never saw the results as the chemicals had given up the ghost, and after running through the machine there was little if anything there. I never found a serious use for it: I think like many Polaroid cameras it was used for producing home-made porn! John in Brisbane -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: > On 12/23/08, John Sessoms wrote: >> They developed and marketed a 35mm instant film that didn't do very well in >> the market. IIRC, it was transparency film available in both color and B&W >> versions. > > I think you needed one of their processing machines, a little hand > cranked device, to process your film. I could be wrong. Yep, I used to run across the processors in the junk bins at a few camera stores. > >> Later they offered Polaroid brand C-41 process 35mm film, and may have >> offered an E6 35mm film as well. >> >> I'm sure about the C-41 version because I have a roll in the freezer; not >> so sure about the E6. > > The C-41 was sold at Wal-Mart for several years. IIRC, the stuff was > made in Germany and wasn't all that bad. And it was cheap. > > -- > Scott Loveless It was consumer Agfa stuff IIRC. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
On 12/23/08, John Sessoms wrote: > They developed and marketed a 35mm instant film that didn't do very well in > the market. IIRC, it was transparency film available in both color and B&W > versions. I think you needed one of their processing machines, a little hand cranked device, to process your film. I could be wrong. > Later they offered Polaroid brand C-41 process 35mm film, and may have > offered an E6 35mm film as well. > > I'm sure about the C-41 version because I have a roll in the freezer; not > so sure about the E6. The C-41 was sold at Wal-Mart for several years. IIRC, the stuff was made in Germany and wasn't all that bad. And it was cheap. -- Scott Loveless New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, USA http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
From: John Francis I believe there was also Polaroid-branded 35mm roll film. They developed and marketed a 35mm instant film that didn't do very well in the market. IIRC, it was transparency film available in both color and B&W versions. Later they offered Polaroid brand C-41 process 35mm film, and may have offered an E6 35mm film as well. I'm sure about the C-41 version because I have a roll in the freezer; not so sure about the E6. -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
From: "frank theriault" On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: > On 12/22/08, Bruce Dayton 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Ken Waller wrote: . It turned out to be a great way it illustrate > issues to plant management - See Bruce's latest PESO. Dave > > Kenneth Waller > http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f > > - Original Message - From: "David J Brooks" > Subject: Re: Another Casualty. > > >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Bruce Dayton >> 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 had one of the instant cameras for a number of years. I would take >> photos of dent's, dings and other flaws in our pipeline maintenance >> work, for ours and TransCanada's references. >> >> When i bought the Kodak DC25 digital in 1997 i could no by pass the >> slow process of mailing in the photos and just email them, with >> changes and captions. >> >> They loved it, and that sold me on digital.:-0 >> >> Dave >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> Monday, December 22, 2008, 4:18:35 PM, you wrote: >>> >>> AM> Not exactly news I'm afraid, they basicly stopped doing business >>> about >>> AM> 6-8 months ago and announced the end of all of their real product >>> AM> lines. I guess the transition from manufacturer to mere brand failed >>> AM> (as expected) >>> >>> AM> -Adam >>> >>> AM> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 4:29 PM, William Robb >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This time it's Polaroid. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.imaginginfo.com/web/online/News/Polaroid-in-Bankruptcy/3$4589 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> William Robb > > > -- > 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. > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
I had no issues, except cost of film, with an SX-70 I used for years when I did plant quality audits. It turned out to be a great way it illustrate issues to plant management - this was years before digital. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: "David J Brooks" Subject: Re: Another Casualty. On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Bruce Dayton 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 had one of the instant cameras for a number of years. I would take photos of dent's, dings and other flaws in our pipeline maintenance work, for ours and TransCanada's references. When i bought the Kodak DC25 digital in 1997 i could no by pass the slow process of mailing in the photos and just email them, with changes and captions. They loved it, and that sold me on digital.:-0 Dave -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, December 22, 2008, 4:18:35 PM, you wrote: AM> Not exactly news I'm afraid, they basicly stopped doing business about AM> 6-8 months ago and announced the end of all of their real product AM> lines. I guess the transition from manufacturer to mere brand failed AM> (as expected) AM> -Adam AM> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 4:29 PM, William Robb wrote: This time it's Polaroid. http://www.imaginginfo.com/web/online/News/Polaroid-in-Bankruptcy/3$4589 William Robb -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
- Original Message - From: "Bob W" Subject: RE: Another Casualty. I've been a bit upset since the demise of wet collodion. Photography has just never been the same since they banned mercury chromate. William Robb -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
Bob W wrote: I doubt they'll be missed much. Into the trash bin of history they go! I know several artist types who are gutted that the film is no longer being made. Once their stocks run out, there goes that particular form of "expression". Cheers, Dave I've been a bit upset since the demise of wet collodion. Bob Mark. I want THAT on a t-shirt D -- der...@iinet.net.au http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc -- 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.
RE: Another Casualty.
> > I doubt they'll be missed much. Into the trash bin of > history they go! > > I know several artist types who are gutted that the film is no longer > being made. > > Once their stocks run out, there goes that particular form of > "expression". > > Cheers, > > Dave I've been a bit upset since the demise of wet collodion. Bob -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
Some of my first forays into digital imaging were with Polaroid. We had a number of film output devices when I was at Apollo. Some of them (like the Matrox film recorder) used interchangeable camera modules. Apart from the standard 35mm camera back there was also an Oxberry animation camera (16mm) and Polaroid backs (one of which took 8x10 sheet film!). I believe there was also Polaroid-branded 35mm roll film. -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
On 12/23/08, David Savage wrote: > I know several artist types... It's best not to spend too much time with those people. -- Scott Loveless New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, USA http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
2008/12/24 frank theriault : > I doubt they'll be missed much. Into the trash bin of history they go! I know several artist types who are gutted that the film is no longer being made. Once their stocks run out, there goes that particular form of "expression". Cheers, Dave -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: > On 12/22/08, Bruce Dayton 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! ;-) cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Bruce Dayton 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 had one of the instant cameras for a number of years. I would take photos of dent's, dings and other flaws in our pipeline maintenance work, for ours and TransCanada's references. When i bought the Kodak DC25 digital in 1997 i could no by pass the slow process of mailing in the photos and just email them, with changes and captions. They loved it, and that sold me on digital.:-0 Dave > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Monday, December 22, 2008, 4:18:35 PM, you wrote: > > AM> Not exactly news I'm afraid, they basicly stopped doing business about > AM> 6-8 months ago and announced the end of all of their real product > AM> lines. I guess the transition from manufacturer to mere brand failed > AM> (as expected) > > AM> -Adam > > AM> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 4:29 PM, William Robb wrote: >>> This time it's Polaroid. >>> >>> http://www.imaginginfo.com/web/online/News/Polaroid-in-Bankruptcy/3$4589 >>> >>> >>> William Robb >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> > > > > > > > -- > 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. > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
I don't know why companies keep trying that. It almost never works. Then someone else buys the brand after they fail and slaps it on cheap junk, kind of what Poloroid did to themselves... -Original Message- >From: Adam Maas >Sent: Dec 22, 2008 7:18 PM >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Another Casualty. > >Not exactly news I'm afraid, they basicly stopped doing business about >6-8 months ago and announced the end of all of their real product >lines. I guess the transition from manufacturer to mere brand failed >(as expected) > >-Adam > >On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 4:29 PM, William Robb wrote: >> This time it's Polaroid. >> >> http://www.imaginginfo.com/web/online/News/Polaroid-in-Bankruptcy/3$4589 >> >> >> William Robb >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > > >-- >M. Adam Maas >http://www.mawz.ca >Explorations of the City Around Us. > >-- >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. -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: > On 12/22/08, Bruce Dayton 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." > > -- > Scott Loveless Frankly, try some Fuji FP100C and experience what Polaroid's colour films could have been. Polaroid had a few great products (Type 55 comes to mind) but has been more marketting than product for pretty much my entire lifetime. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
On 12/22/08, Bruce Dayton 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." -- Scott Loveless New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, USA http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
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. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, December 22, 2008, 4:18:35 PM, you wrote: AM> Not exactly news I'm afraid, they basicly stopped doing business about AM> 6-8 months ago and announced the end of all of their real product AM> lines. I guess the transition from manufacturer to mere brand failed AM> (as expected) AM> -Adam AM> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 4:29 PM, William Robb wrote: >> This time it's Polaroid. >> >> http://www.imaginginfo.com/web/online/News/Polaroid-in-Bankruptcy/3$4589 >> >> >> William Robb >> >> -- >> 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. >> -- 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.
re: Another Casualty
From: "William Robb" This time it's Polaroid. http://www.imaginginfo.com/web/online/News/Polaroid-in-Bankruptcy/3$4589 William Robb Seems like there's more to it than just the demise of film though. -- 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.
Re: Another Casualty.
Not exactly news I'm afraid, they basicly stopped doing business about 6-8 months ago and announced the end of all of their real product lines. I guess the transition from manufacturer to mere brand failed (as expected) -Adam On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 4:29 PM, William Robb wrote: > This time it's Polaroid. > > http://www.imaginginfo.com/web/online/News/Polaroid-in-Bankruptcy/3$4589 > > > William Robb > > -- > 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. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- 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.
