;_;
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
;_;
>>2781413
holy fuck. never shot instant.
should i feel bad?
>>2781415
The Polaroid backs for medium format cameras like the hassy and mamiya were pretty nifty.
I just ordered a polaroid back for my RB67 a few days ago.
DAMN IT FUJI YOU DID IT AGAIN
Fujifilm, pls stop this.
>>2781437
I was going to order a back for my Mamiya just a few hours ago but held off so I could see my local camera store. Glad I held off.
>>2781413
Fuck, I had a lot of fun with it.
Sooo what's the alternative? I don't want the overpriced project as an alternative.
>>2781447
with polaroid back
>>2781447
I dont think there will be an alternative.
>>2781413
I saw this coming. Now I'm glad I modded my Pathfinder to shoot instax wide.
>>2781454
Isnt that a huge downgrade. From 100c to instax?
>>2781455
Yeah kinda, at least instax is fast.
Aslong as fuji dont fuck with their 120 film.
>>2781461
I have a bad news for you anon
They've discontinued bunch of slide film recently and please dont look at their 120 film sales last year.
Friendly reminder that you unless you burn through a roll at least every couple of days, you don't shoot enough film and are hastening its demise.
>>2781466
I'm just glad I get to shoot film. There might not be the film I prefer to shoot but there will likely be film for a long time. If there is no more film for some reason I'll miss it but I'll just get a digital camera.
>>2781447
There is none. Another company needs to step up, at this point. Impossible has SX-70/600/Spectra/8x10 covered, and New55 is slowly resuming 4x5 instant.
Was this the last film in production that could be used in 4x5 backs?
I haven't shot with one in 10+ years but did a lot back in the day. Incidentally, I just saw that Polaroid 55 is now almost $400 per expired pack on eBay, holy fuck. I thought that shit was expensive back when it was still being made.
RIP all Polaroid land cameras and most if not all medium format instant backs. I can understand why Fujifilm did it, but still it's quite sad.
There's really no possibility for a replacement film either. Hopefully users can mod their cameras to accept Instax Wide.
>>2781455
Instax has better colors (subjective I know) and the prints are more durable. Also no peeling bullshit.
>>2781710
instax is pure shite.
>>2781711
It's the best instant film in production now unfortunately.
Shot some impossible project film for the first time last week and it was dreadful, costs £2 a shot, your first shot is almost always wasted as you need to check how much exposure compensation you need to add for that specific pack of film and it takes an hour to develop. Was looking at getting a land camera but I guess there's no point now
>>2781711
Every young girl use it here. I would totally support them, shite or not as long as instant film alive.
>>2781466
Friendly remember, shooting film is expensive in the long run, not as fun as early film experience, unhealthy and harmful to the environment, really time wasting and patience testing for the scanning process + the dust
And yet here I am, still shooting 120 bw film one - two rolls per month with my good ol hassy.
Fuck film
>>2781413
Will Fuji just drop the "film" from their name already and stop pretending like they still care?
Hopefully this means that impossible can start making some 4x5 film now. They already do 8x10
I've never understood Fuji's strategy here. Why did they expect selling peel-apart films when the cameras that use them are mostly 30+ years old and outdated? They never helped the FPs with updated camera models like they did with Instax.
>>2781763
>Will Fuji just drop the "film" from their name already and stop pretending like they still care?
Hi Matt. Find any nice cameras today?
>tfw just shoot ilford b&w and kodak c41
>don't have to deal with fuji's shit show
fuck em, japs make nice cameras but their marketing tactics are fucking bonkers
>>2781413
>take picture of monitor screen
>post it on the web
>screenshot his phone
wat
>>2782020
>and he didn't even heart up tokyocamerstyle
baka senpai baka desu
>>2781884
FP-series film production continued as long as it did because the format was still popular for passport and ID photography in developing countries - that market has largely gone digital, now.
>>2781740
>shooting film is expensive in the long run
Agree
>not as fun as early film experience
Disagree. Some of the most fun I've had with film was seeing my positive slides on a light table and a projector. Then seeing positive 120 film on a light table. I still suck but now it's more fun to take pictures because I actually know how to expose film to some accuracy.
>unhealthy
Not if done properly. I get someone else to develop my film so the only thing getting sick is my bank balance.
>harmful to the environment
Again not if done properly. I hope my lab disposes of chemicals properly. Digital is pretty bad for the environment if you consider all the rare earths in the camera and all the power used to take and work on the pictures.
>really time wasting and patience testing for the scanning process + the dust
I hate scanning. I thought I would enjoy it at first, trying to get the best quality from my scans. The only fun thing is zooming into medium format to see how much detail it has and learning to edit photos.
Funny how film has so many negatives and we still use it. Either film is amazing or we have some kind of mental disorder. Most likely the latter.
>>2782018
Ilford kept talking about how they will be around then they get bought by venture capitalists. Hopefully they don't gut the company for scrap and instead invest in the company to make it greater. It's so weird to say today that Kodak is the film company with best prospects and stability.
>>2781413
And nothing of value was lost.
>"Man I haven't shot anything with my Polaroid 240 in ages, I really need to re-solder battery holder and get some more film"
>See this
So how many years until IP picks it up and then spends 10 years of reverse engineering?
>>2782333
>Funny how film has so many negatives and we still use it.
Stockholm syndrome, deep down we know any film smaller than 6x7 is now inferior and less convenient than the latest full frame digi. But we've been investing so much money in expensive film gear and stocking a refrigerator full of films, so just pretend we've been enjoying it and tell the others that film is an amazing experience to shoot and learn.
>>2782430
Quite possible actually. Although I dont have fridge full of film, i can definately relate to that. Especially now when my shared darkroom is "under construction until further noticed"and I have no means to enlarge my negatives (or scan). Feels shite, but its not the films fault. Film is not bad. I will find a way! Film needs to be freeed!
>>2782430
Friendly reminder that if you can keep a fridge fully stocked with film, you aren't shooting enough.
Guess I'm not gonna get a Polaroid back for my rb67 :/ what a shame.. I was really looking forward to shooting medium format instants.
>>2782456
Someone will find a way to shoot Instax Wide on MF polaroid backs. This won't be the end
>>2782430
> film smaller than 6x7
not sure if really uninformed or just gear humblebrag
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 846 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 65 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 200 dpi Vertical Resolution 200 dpi Image Created 2012:12:14 20:12:21 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/6.3 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 2500 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Unknown Flash Flash, Compulsory, Return Detected Focal Length 65.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2296 Image Height 3000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2782540
This, instax wide isn't peel apart but it actually looks pretty great. People have already succeeded in rigging a 645 format cameras to shoot on instax mini on a darkroom reload per shot basis so it shouldn't be too unrealistic. Hard part is just actually getting the little cards out so you dont have to put your gigantic mf camera in a changing bag every time you want to shoot a picture
>>2782563
Just need to find some way to develop and eject the prints using the existing rollers in the back. Some dedicated soul should be able to figure it out
>>2782565
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBV5cn6yhys
that or some brave soul could take apart an instax 210, take off the lens part, sand the sides down a bit and leave the roller and motorized part intact and mount it in the back. That way you can expose using the main camera and after exposing you press the 210 shutter button which pushes out the film. Adds another layer of creativity to it when you can let it sit longer before you roll it maybe
>>2782430
good thing I shoot 6x7 then :^)
>>2782557
>exif data
what
who took this
does he post on here?
>>2782684
Yeah, I do.
>>2782430
>deep down we know any film smaller than 6x7 is now inferior and less convenient than the latest full frame digi
Only if you care about the resolution.
Film has a look I have or see anyone else yet to manage to replicate digitally consistently.
>>2782773
Muh vsco
>>2782430
I shoot 6x7 and I think you can get a lot of resolution from it but digital gets close enough and it only takes a fraction of a second. I think even 35mm has a lot of resolution but it just takes time and effort to do what digital does instantaneously.
>>2782449
I have a lot of film in the fridge and I know I'm not shooting enough. I'd shoot more if film was cheaper to develop. It would be cheaper to do it myself but I just don't feel like it.
