Boy, did I open a can of worms on this one. ;=) This is now the vintage
photographers digest!
My comment stemmed from the fact that exposing and developing a large
format polaroid almost invariably resulted in non-uniformity across the
image. The medium itself had mediocre resolution, at least in color.
The 8x10 Polaroids I referred to were used as photmicrographs of
semiconductor chips at various stages of the fabrication process. The
mormal sized B&W Polaroids had much better resolution and uniformity
than the large color ones. The large color ones were mostly used to
impress Management. ;=) The trick in developing the large format
Polaroids is careful control of time and temperature. The temperature
uniformity across the image has a lot to do with the quality. Land
was obviously a master at this technique. He invented it. It also
helped if you cleaned the rollers after every shot. It was messy.
To put the medium into historical perspective, you have to remember that
in Land's time, photography was considered a very difficult art form to
master, or even use at all. Back then, most photographs were taken on
large glass plates, in very large cameras, and they were all developed by
the photographer. What Land did was revolutionary in that it meant that
ordinary people could go out and take pictures of their family on vacation,
or wherever, without having to have any of the talent, training, or money
of the professional photographers. The "instant gratification" of the
Polaroid process also fit well with the American culture. ;=) The little
box cameras that came along a bit later were also a step toward photography
for the masses. You could actually get pretty good B&W photos out of a
Brownie, if careful attention was paid to the lighting. Correct me if I'm
wrong, but I was told that the old 620 format is the same size as now used
in expensive Hasselblad cameras. The Brownie qualified as large format, it
just didn't have the optics!
As a proof before burning expensive large format film, the smaller
Polaroids work quite well. I wonder if the supply of them will dry up
as pros switch to digital cameras. It's happening.
I think the problem you're seeing with 110 or disk cameras is a result of
going too far toward the photography for the masses goal. These disposable
cameras really can't compare to a decent 35mm camera. The big difference
is in the quality of the optics, and the film itself. It's just lower grade
stuff all around.
David Laver wrote:
>
> I was wondering about the 'poor quality' comment. How does polaroid compare
> to conventional negative? Thinking in conventional terms the light is cast
> over a huge area so it is going to have to be a very fast film. Then again
> the bigger is usually much much better which is always the diappointment
> with 110, or disk, or APS.
>
> David
>
> Jim Hayes wrote:
>
> > Simon Favre wrote:
> > >
> > > I guess using a 4x5 camera WILL get you special treatment. Is it a
> > > babe magnet, too? ;=)
> > >
> > > You know, you used to be able to get 8x10 Polaroid film. How's that
> > > for the worst possible quality in the largest possible format?
> > Simon, Dr. Land is rolling in his grave.
> > The large format Polaroids were really top quality if properly exposed
> > and developed. I still have some 4X5s from my view camera days that are
> > startlingly good. Not only could you get 8X10 but I believe there there
> > is still available film that is about 20X30 inches.
> > Jim
> > --
> > Jim Hayes Fotec/Cable U
> > hayes@mediaone.net http://www.CableU.net
> > jeh@fotec.com http://www.fotec.com/
> > All generalizations, with the possible exception of this one, are false!
|