What do you think of Polaroid cameras? A lot of people say it's just a hipster thing, but I want to read opinions from real photographers
>>2798374
Fucking put it in the gear thread asshole.
>>2798382
My bad, I don't own a polaroid camera, it would be a waste of space in the "Gear Thread"
>>2798374
We have an instax printer and the film cost too much.
>>2798384
>My bad, I don't own a polaroid camera, it would be a waste of space in the "Gear Thread"
And it's less of a waste of space bumping a thread off the board...
Holy hell you're dumb.
>>2798391
It wouldn't be related to the topic, besides, if you don't like the thread you can simply scroll down, who's the dumb person?
>>2798395
How is it not related to the topic? This is gear stuff, which belongs in the gear thread.
>simply scroll down
Fucking read the sticky retard.
>>2798397
Gear that I don't own, scroll, or what, do you carw about the thread?
I like them. film isn't too expensive (like 50p a shot) if you order from aliexpress
they're fun.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2798399
It's a thread for talking about gear mouthbreather.
And as you still obviously haven't read the fucking sticky, gear shit goes in the gear thread.
>>2798402
Oh, you decided to stay, I appreciate it darling, would you like some coffee?
>>2798412
Awesome, on top of thumbing your nose at board culture by ignoring the sticky and being a prick about it, you're also breaking board rules.
>>2798466
Why so serious? Would you like tea instead?
>>2798477
I'm not serious. You're just a shitty enough human being that you're not worth being civil to.
>>2798483
But I just offered you coffee and tea, how is that being bad? A glass of water maybe?...
>>2798382
Yeah, because we need more "I took a shitty Picts" thread.
>>2798656
Do you have the slightest idea what this board is actually for?
>>2798382
>>2798391
>>2798397
>>2798402
>>2798466
>>2798483
Cripes man, you may have autism of some sort.
>>2798374
I think it's a lot of fun. It's getting rarer to have physical copies of photos nowadays so having an actual thing to give someone after taking a nice photo is worlds away from just a Facebook post with someone tagged.
>>2798374
i think i could get me an instax mini. they say the photos are fuck tiny, but im sure its fun as hell. and the photos are way cute, saw them used in an exhibition.. paired with the huge "principal" prints, the "immediate" look of the minis made them look like some forensic evidence, it was awesome.
>>2798374
>Polaroid
>>2798400
>I like them. film isn't too expensive (like 50p a shot) if you order from aliexpress
>aliexpress
>$15 for a box of 20 films
>$0.75 each film
>>2798718
maybe he's from the UK and doesnt use The Shittest Currency In The WorldTM
Honestly with the frequency youre going to use instax its not that expensive, trust me
>>2798374
It is just a hipster toy thing. Too expensive, can't perform for shit.
If you somehow want to directly give people their photos at an event or something, you still have the option to use a mobile printer like the Canon Selphy, but with a good camera.
And you can digitally process and archive the same pictures later on, too.
>>2798785
>If you somehow want to directly give people their photos at an event or something, you still have the option to use a mobile printer like the Canon Selphy, but with a good camera.
>Canon Selphy
Fucking pig disgusting as hell.
I'll stick with an instax printer. If you're getting a print from me on the spot, you're probably better off with something that'll fit in your wallet anyway.
Why are these instax/polaroid (rip fuji fp, it was a league above these) threads always full of adamant defenders and people saying positive stuff about them but NEVER with any photos or the few that look like someone failing at lomography with a holga through a cellphone "scan".
I'm yet to see any non-artsy (i.e. actually technically correct or sharp) instax/polaroid photo posted on /p/.
>>2798786
You can also make ~credit card sized photos apart from post card sized photos with the Selphy.
Also, I prefer long-term stable photos, since they often will be pinned up for a long while.
Don't think Instax film will do that anywhere near the level as light stable sealed pigment ink does.
They're fun. Don't sweat it so much OP. I got one from a bin at goodwill for five bucks and let people shoot whole cartridge of impossible film at a party to test it and it worked out great.
There's some particular models that are far nicer than others so do a little bit of research because they can still be had for next to nothing.
>>2798788
>I'm yet to see any non-artsy (i.e. actually technically correct or sharp) instax/polaroid photo posted on /p/
>>2798788
Because most people use them for social purposes, as toys, or as a souvenir to give to subjects, not as an actual final printing medium. I'd have thought that'd have been obvious.
Since you ask tho, I print off a shitload of them. Prolly put $200 through it in film in two months.
>>2798793
This is like comparing two brands of boxed wine by their vintages, dawg. Stupid.
If you want your prints to last, make real prints. Not Instax. Not Selphy.
>>2798799
> This is like comparing two brands of boxed wine by their vintages, dawg. Stupid.
They are both a photo printed on the spot.
And you can do small photos, as I said. Also, small stickers and stuff.
> If you want your prints to last, make real prints. Not Instax. Not Selphy.
Wrong. Selphy prints will last. It is light stable, sealed pigment.
>>2798804
>Wrong. Selphy prints will last. It is light stable, sealed pigment.
I can tell by your use of words like "light stable, sealed pigment" that you are very knowledgeable and know much about both printing and archivability.
It's worth mentioning that you're going to need to carry a backpack around to carry a Selphy. An Instax printer fits any bag, and probably in most dudes back pockets.
But no, Selphy prints will not last. There's plenty of documentation of their fading over time online.
No matter your light stable, sealed pigment mined from exotic rainforest fruits by the benevolent benefactor.
>>2798803
that bottom left one is neato
can I get a closeup
>>2798806
it's just one with multiple photos arranged on it, I've got a couple like it with different photos kicking around my bag. Hand them out with info written on them as really expensive business cards.
That one's a mix of B&W landscapes.
>>2798808
>it's just one with multiple photos arranged on it
Yeah I figured that. The arrangement is just nice
I brought an Instax Mini to Honduras last summer, here's my favorite shot.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model QSS-32_33 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016-03-22T09:56-04:00 Image Width 667 Image Height 1000
>>2798805
> It's worth mentioning that you're going to need to carry a backpack around to carry a Selphy.
The better two Selphy models:
18,1 x 13,6 x 6,3 cm
17,5 x 12,5 x 6 cm
An instax share:
15 x 11 x 8 cm
Bullshit much?
>But no, Selphy prints will not last.
Yes, they will last.
> There's plenty of documentation of their fading over time online.
Show it for one of the current models that use stable ink and coat the picture.
You are just wrong about basically everything.
>>2798817
>camera shake
>blown highlights
>ugly bitch in frame
0/10, try harder.
>>2799069
Canon shills mad.
>>2798808
Do you hand them out with a fucking magnifying glass?
>>2799069
I own one of those Selphy models and while 'you need a backpack' is an obvious troll, it's still not comparable with the Instax Share because of the power supply and paper cartridge. But it's also not comparable with the Instax because it can actually print 6x4s and is cheap per shot.
>>2799173
Most people don't struggle to see credit card size objects
>>2799124
thats not a shot you should diss, kid memer. grow up.
>>2799210
Credit card size photos are bad enough. Cramming six into the space of a credit card is just retarded.
>>2799219
It's a simple novelty, you pitifully autistic overthinker.
My friend posts Instax photos on facebook and they are some of the worst things I've ever seen
>>2799223
Sorry, I have to disagree.
It's kitsch, and anyone over the age of 40 (sunlight-exposure UV hardening of the eye's lenses causing presbyopia) wont be able to see shit without glasses on, which completely negates the concept of an effective card.
I see a lot of newbie photographers doing this with their 500-free-cards internet deals on wafer thin cards that present the card makers logo better than anyhting the photographer has tried to convey.
They assume everyone can read it because they can, or thought they could when designing it but even they can't actually read it easily when they actually get the cards.
Shambolically; I also know an older gent who has been shooting forever, and his card is a collage of his photos... it's so bad... most people can't see the images for shit, he certainly cannot, even with is glasses on, and it completely detracts from the excessive quantities of tiny text he tries to overlay onto the colors. It's ridiculous.
A card should always be simple and elegant. It's not a fucking microfiche portfolio.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model PENTAX K-3 Camera Software darktable 1.4 Photographer Andrew Wade Eglington oh-hi.info Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 75 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2015:08:19 22:48:45 Exposure Time 1/180 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 800 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash Flash Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 800 Image Height 1200 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Hard Saturation Low Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Close View
>>2799277
A novelty business card is not meant to replace an actual business card. You're totally misunderstanding it.
Novelty here has a literal meaning. :)
I'd absolutely love to do an entire book on just polaroid shots.
>>2798391
You sound a lot like the guy who criticized my 700D shot.
>>2799304
lol
>>2799286
And I guess you have no use for an actual business card, so there isn't a problem.
>>2799441
don't be a petty pussyboi
>>2799124
There's not a whole lot of manual controls on an instant camera dumbass.
I use the little printer and give them out as gifts. Pic from related from a meeting at the Jordanian palace.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1080 Image Height 1920 Scene Capture Type Standard
