Just won't give up - polaroid film buffs

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/te...ref=technology

or http://tinyurl.com/o7s67s

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan Browne wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/te...ref=technology

or http://tinyurl.com/o7s67s

I had to google "Polaroid Lovers Try to Revive Its Instant Film"
or register/login.

"So they are now seeking, or reinventing, chemicals that can mimic what
Polaroid’s own once did. For example, they are searching for a form of
latex that can be easily coated onto a gelatin base to recreate the
“timing layer” of Polaroid film, which controls the developing process."

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On 25-05-09 19:40, Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/te...ref=technology


or http://tinyurl.com/o7s67s

I had to google "Polaroid Lovers Try to Revive Its Instant Film"
or register/login.

"So they are now seeking, or reinventing, chemicals that can mimic what
Polaroid’s own once did. For example, they are searching for a form of
latex that can be easily coated onto a gelatin base to recreate the
“timing layer” of Polaroid film, which controls the developing process."

Sounds like fun!


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:
Sounds like fun!

I think it's amazing that someone is willing to spend that to re-create such
impractical process.

Pity they are not doing Ektar 25.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Philip Homburg wrote:

Pity they are not doing Ektar 25.

Has anyone tried the new film that was supposed to be the same?

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

Philip Homburg wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:
Sounds like fun!

I think it's amazing that someone is willing to spend that to re-create such
impractical process.

Pity they are not doing Ektar 25.



There is no need for Ektar 25. There is a far superior substitute:
5D MkII.

Doug McDonald

"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:
Philip Homburg wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:
Sounds like fun!

I think it's amazing that someone is willing to spend that to
re-create such
impractical process.

Pity they are not doing Ektar 25.


There is no need for Ektar 25. There is a far superior substitute:
5D MkII.

If you have no taste, yes...

Rol_Lei Nut wrote:
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:
Philip Homburg wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:
Sounds like fun!

I think it's amazing that someone is willing to spend that to
re-create such
impractical process.

Pity they are not doing Ektar 25.


There is no need for Ektar 25. There is a far superior substitute:
5D MkII.

If you have no taste, yes...

What on earth do you mean by that? I have used Ektar 25 a bit.

It is a gppd film, very fine grain, but fairly high contrast and
a seriously constrained dynamic range compared to the usual
color negative film.

It cannot hold a candle in any way to a modern digital camera
with adequate pixels. Yes, at its absolute best Ektar 25 could
outresolve the 5D MkII just a little. At 30 or so megapixels it
would not. But the info that is there is simply better. Also,
simply getting a picture with Ektar 25 that actually equalled
the resolution of a digital camera was not easy: you almost had
to have either full sunlight or else a big heavy tripod
and a truly static subject (i.e. in a studio with no wind).

Now if Ektar 25 had been available in large format .....
well, at one time there was this place where it DID
exist, and it was called "The Garden of Eden".

Doug McDonald

In article ,
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:
Philip Homburg wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:
Sounds like fun!

I think it's amazing that someone is willing to spend that to re-create such
impractical process.

Pity they are not doing Ektar 25.

There is no need for Ektar 25. There is a far superior substitute:
5D MkII.

I think you are missing the point. It is about having fun with old analog
equipment. For some people apparently that involves polaroid. For me it
would be Ektar 25. Though I have to admit that there are many great films
these days.

Obviosly I'm not going to buy a camera that fails at the slightest bit of
cold or moist (see the trip report at luminous-landscape).
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

In article ,
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:
Philip Homburg wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:
Sounds like fun!

I think it's amazing that someone is willing to spend that to re-create such
impractical process.

Pity they are not doing Ektar 25.



There is no need for Ektar 25. There is a far superior substitute:
5D MkII.

Roll of Ektar 25 (when available): $5
5D MkII (body only, no lenses): $2500+

--
Scott Norwood: ,
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?