so my sister got one of these for christmas and it's actually pretty fun.
so I'm gonna get a polaroid. any suggestions or should I just go instax mini.? I'd prefer square format but not if it's gonna be way harder to find film.
in b4 massive hipster
i know
>>2729156
Unless you want to pay many times more for frame...
There's a instant wide too.
I like the instax wide. some years ago I got my gf some Polaroid 600. 4 exposures since then as the Impossible films suck. You're certainly better off with some instax if you don't care about the 'real polaroid look'.
>>2729163
don't the use the same film?
looking at instax mini 90 rn
>>2729171
There's the Instax Mini and the Instax Wide film. different formats.
just go 35mm bc cheaper film!!!
>>2729186
Different completely though. Polaroid is instant gratification. You take it and it develops in front of your eyes.
35mm is a bit more of an involved process.
Polaroids or funky 35mm compacts are the ultimate party camera. I have a Konica Pop in bright pink and it starts conversations like nothing else
>>2729212
>35mm party camera
How does that even work? You just take the pictures at a party and wait a week to see them? Sounds boring af
wat
>>2729212
>instant gratification
you consider digi?
>>2729215
Novelty effect. It's a change from the selfie on an iPhone. Also you don't wait a week, you wait an hour. If I'm at a party on a Friday night, I'll go get the film developed on a Saturday Morning and go get a coffee while I wait.
>>2729228
Sort of out of the question here. The whole attraction to Polaroid is the same attraction to Vinyl. People are bored of digital
>>2729215
As somebody who does this I can say that it is really fun, but it's very different to the instant gratification of an Instax/Polaroid. If you want the fun of an instant camera, get an instant camera.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:12:03 21:15:38
Enjoy your expensive film cartridges,
I'm still waiting for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QsEOHIp4Vc
If its not out soon, ill make my own.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS REBEL T2i Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh) Photographer Michael Ciuffo Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.7 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2050 Image Height 1459 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:12:18 09:43:14 Exposure Time 1/15 sec F-Number f/7.1 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/7.0 Exposure Bias -1 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 55.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 640 Image Height 455 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2729240
>being awake the morning after a party
amateur
Alternatively, there's Mint Instanflex TL70 that uses instax mini film on a true TLR camera and the Instax printer, portable WiFi enabled instax mini printer, it take a bit of the joy of instant cameras, but at least you have total control on the end result.
>>2729246
I can't tell if this is real or not
Just buy a DSLR faggot.
Each individual photo is much cheaper;
>>2729215
>You just take the pictures at a party and wait a week to see them?
What is with this "week" meme that I keep seeing about film on this board?
>>2729266
People here like to meme that it takes a week to develop film. As though 1 hour development hasn't been around for ages, or ya know, scanning.
>>2729228
It's for the instant gratification of having a print from film to hand around, not passing around your huge DSLR so everyone can chimp the LCD and look at camera processed JPEGs.
>>2729240
>The whole attraction to Polaroid is the same attraction to Vinyl.
No, the attraction to Polaroid is that you get an instant fucking print to give to someone, is this so hard to understand? Taking 35mm film and then scanning it the next day and posting to FB is the same as digital in terms of its novelty.
>>2729292
>sooc jpegs
lmao what the fuck are you doing on a photography board
>>2729266
That's how you can tell someone hasn't shoot film and/or doesn't know how to develop it themselves.
>>2729294
In case you didn't know, the digital preview in your camera is a basic processed JPEG, not your RAW.
Hey OP, just to let you know the Instax film is expensive as fuck. I bought a Neo Classic mini 90 for my mum for her birthday and since then, I've spent about $200 in film for her since she can't control herself with taking pictures.
I've told here I'm buying two more packets and not a single more for her.
Get ready to get your shit wrecked.
>>2729156
Are you me?
My stepsiter got exactly the same
Got my sister one last year actually. If you can get the medium format one. The mini is far too small
>>2729156
Polaroids were for people too embarrassed to get nudes developed. They were garbage, and the photos get worse with age.
>>2729430
>$200
>expensive as fuck
baka senpai. digital has cucked you good.
>>2729156
Polaroid is good. 'roid rage.
>>2729831
>Polaroids were for people too embarrassed to get nudes developed.
Or if you wanted to sell the schoolgirls' panties while they were still fresh, but didn't want to wait for the roll to be filled and developed.
Plus you wind up with all these negatives of schoolgirls exposing themselves; that's just ... weird.
>>2729246
This is utterly retarded.
Instax/Impossible-fag reporting.
15.99 for INSTAX Wide film at B&H
Don't go with the Polaroid and Impossible films... Spent $90 on 4 packs of film, totaling just 32 shots.
Get a 35mm, a $4 roll of Fuji, and print the pictures with a Polaroid border. It's not as fast, but it's a lot smarter, money-wise.
Or just get a digital and a printer that can wireless talk and send pictures to the printer as you take them. Modern 8x11 Polaroids. And you already look like a nerd for bringing the camera to the party, so go ahead and bring the printer also. It won't hurt.
>>2729813
But the mini is basically a 645.
>>2730367
645 is way too small.
>>2729163
That actually looks pretty cool.
>>2730367
645 on 100-400 speed negative or slide film through a professional glass lens is a lot different than 645 instant pack film through a small plastic lens designed for teenage girls.
>>2730294
The absurdity of it is what makes it cool.
>>2729281
Protip: 98% of one hour labs are utter trash that ruin your negatives and charge way more than places you mail your shit to.
>>2729163
>the most creative camera
*hurl*
>>2729281
local minilabs are pretty much extinct, bruh
>>2730995
I live in a town of less than 20k people and it still has a minilab. At least in the UK, anywhere large enough to have a Boots store will have a minilab.
>>2731034
Well, I guess there are certain benefits to living in a primitive backwater.
>so
>>2730072
they still use these in used panties stores in Japan. The girls get extra money if they go to a backroom where a guy takes pictures of them peeing in the panties before they go on sale.
>>2729246
kek
do want
