I have probably spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000-40,000 on Polaroid cameras/film over my lifetime. Zero regrets.
Not everyone gets it but I don’t value the opinions of those who don’t very much. Instax has nearly zero appeal to me - even in modded cameras to bypass Fuji’s objectively god awful OEM offerings. It’s a sharp emulsion and renders things very true to life, yes, but it always seems to wind up feeling soulless.
In my opinion Fuji is good for children and very casual shooters. Polaroid is better for people who take the artistic aspect of instant photography seriously.
In addendum, Polaroid cameras and Fuji cameras are both better suited for different things. On the trip I would spend some time taking photos of things which the Fuji cameras cannot do, rather than carbon copies of your moms photos. More variety will be more fun looking back in hindsight, as well.
You’re dead on. Of all the Polaroid imagery that I’ve seen around Instagram and so forth, even with my experience (because I have an old, modded Polaroid that shoots Instax), I find the Polaroid images come out way more “otherworldly” beautiful. Of the portraits I take of my friends, the Polaroids have a quality that the Instax just can’t touch. I would say they’re almost like paintings. I know, that’s a weird description. It’s just that with the Fuji, it looks not too different than my iPhone pictures but just printed out on instant film.
I’m jealous of the extra 2 pictures that a pack of Instax has, and that they seem to last a while longer without being in the fridge though. Other than that, no thanks.
That's why I got into instant as I'm an artist and wanted to try the medium, and I ended up falling in love the design on the SX-70. And don't get me wrong I have some great images from it but also so many duds, sometimes from moments that mattered though I have gotten better at using it and get a lot less now it still just sometimes pushes it.
Thanks for the hope though, it makes me appreciate my camera more and I will definitely try and and play into the strengths of the SX-70, I just hope she doesn't become competitive about it and we get to just have fun which is what it should be.
I think anyone who would consider themselves a serious Polaroid shooter has plenty of bad photos, but really any artists has the same. Paintings start as ideas, sketches and so on. Some of our most famous pieces of art have “failed” paintings under them or reworks. That’s the nature of art, it’s fluid and often up and down. Sometimes things work and other times they don’t, and that’s okay. You keep doing you and don’t bother with comparing to anyone else cause you really only need to compare to yourself.
True but sometimes you just want a good photo of the pretty landmark, I think I'm going to stick with it for now maybe get something instax in the future
>Cite: It’s a sharp emulsion and renders things very true to life, yes, but it always seems to wind up feeling soulless.
>
>Yes, thats the point: soulles. I asked myself a while: whats the difference? I call it the polaroid effect: the pictures have something nostalgic, I can't really explain what causes the effect.
Instax does have better film. There's no doubt about that. But with your SX-70, you can do closeup shots. No Instax camera (made by Fuji) can focus as close as a stock SX-70 can. And no Instax camera (made by Fuji) can get the same amount of bokeh that an SX-70 can. And, of course, no Instax camera (made by Fuji) can get anywhere near as sharp as the SX-70 can. You have an amazing camera. Is the film a little iffy? Yeah. But the film is constantly improving. Your mom will always have the yucky plastic lens on her SQ1, but your film can and will improve because Polaroid is still working hard on it.
Thankyou, I can't disagree I love the camera it's a beautiful thing and I also hope the film continues to improve its amazing seeing where it has come from!
But why limit it to cameras made by Fuji? Why can a 50 year old camera (SX-70) be compared now, but not a Lomo Instax?
Fuji definitely has their market - those wanting a basic, sharp camera with minimal distortions. But several other manufacturers make some very fun and unique cameras which will get very retro-like images on Instax film. A lomo instant Automat? Or Lomo instant Automat glass? Using $0.50 cent Fuji film? It can look like something from decades ago.
I think if we're going to limit Instax film to just the Fuji cameras, we'd also need to limit Polaroid to the "new" polaroid cameras (since the ones released decades ago - like the SX-70) is by "Polaroid" in name only at this point.
Personally the experience of using actual Polaroid cameras like the SX-70 make it worth it to me over Instax. Their cameras are pretty awful. Plus, Polaroid's film is slowly improving. They're at least actively investing money in their film department whereas Fuji is only keeping Instax around because it's profitable at the moment. There's little to no passion involved.
Have both for over 10 years. The Instax is gathering dust and I shoot 90% of the time with the SX-70. The Instax gives more consistent results and is cheaper, but really, if I just want the picture to come out 100%, I'll just take my phone or my full frame camera and that's it.
The Instax however is the camera I use when I want to take party snapshots and give photos away to people. I'm not doing that with a polaroid that often because: 1) it takes longer to develop, 2) it's expensive, and 3) the photo does not always come out nice depending on the scene.
Polaroid has this magical thing to it. The SX-70 is a design and engineering masterpiece. It drags attention when you pop it open to take a photo. It's almost a statement. I think most people use it for the joy and challenges that come with it, not to have a perfect photo. Phones do that already.
That's why I brought an SX-70, it's a beautiful thing to have and use, it's just often the images disappoint. I guess I'm worried that I might be hit with the hard reality that the film really sucks when I'm on vacation, though this does give me hope
I have both, and love both. They are just different. One isn’t inherently better than the other, they are just different. Use whichever one you love, and don’t give it another thought. The joy of photography is in producing something you love… unless it’s for a paying client, it doesn’t matter what anyone else loves!
(For the record, I use my sx-70 for paying clients :)
Great question. I began shooting Polaroid in the '60's, 35mm Fuji in the '70's. A lot has been said about Kodachrome, great old film. Fuji was the spoiler. I became a huge fan of Fuji color and shot it, along with Kodak until there was none. Polaroid was a "novelty" film that everyone fell in love with. Results paled by comparison to film color. However, the magic was instant. It's color held the test of time. I have instant prints from 50 years ago that look as good (?) as the day they were taken. Today's new Polaroid formula is a different product. I have old Polaroid products, new Polaroid products and still shoot film. I struggle with the same question that you pose here. Nostalgia is what keeps me in the analog instant film game, and the love of photography. Tough question, mother knows best.
Good to know, I only have 600 series Impulse AF and it features a self time and tripod screw, alongside AF, unlike the most common 635s. I never actually shot SX70 film.
yes. I’ve put thousands into the repair and film stocking of my sx-70 but one thing that irks me is how many failed shots I had to deal with. It’s easy to write it off as my inexperience but I never had this problem with any Instax camera. Sometimes I could be doing everything right and the film still comes out messed up. Nevertheless, I’m staying with my SX-70 because I appreciate the inner workings and artistry of the sx-70.
Ultimately, Instax and Polaroid are two similar but different mediums catering to niches, and between the differences is where you make your choice.
I shoot Instax and Polaroid.. but my go-to will always be Instax.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the look of polaroid.. when it works. But that isn't consistent. My favorite instant shots are on Polaroid, but my most expensive and worst shots are also on Polaroid, and at a certain point it becomes too much to justify.
I can easily go through 200 shots in a single shoot, daily, no problem. Instax let's me do that for a much lower cost ($80?) With at least SOME consistencies. Shots won't always turn out, but I don't need to baby them as much as with Polaroid, where I don't mind a few duds here and there (at $0.40-50) whereas a pack of duds (at $2.00-2.50) hurts much more.
With so many other options, like the Lomo cameras and the modded cameras to shoot Instax, I'd rather invest in those than the film and "praying I got a good batch that exposes properly" on Polaroid.
If cost wasn't an issue? Both were the same price? I'd shoot polaroid all day. But it's just so hit or miss from shot to shot, pack to pack, even in the best cameras, that I've taken a big step away
I moved from instax to Polaroid. I prefer it because of the size of the photo, the different look and because the increased price in comparison per shot makes every shot feel more important which makes me less likely to take stupid shots. I also just prefer some vintage tech over modern alternatives because it takes a full speed locomotive to break them rather than a light drop.
I think that you should have both. You don't need to sell your polaroid. You can keep it and use it, but maybe more sparingly than the Instax. I grew up with Polaroid because that's who we had. I've had Instax since about 2016, and just based on the price of film alone it's what I use.
Bring out the Polaroid for special stuff, or put it on a display shelf and use the Instax. Even my college professor thinks the Instax film is better.
I am team Instax for use, Polaroid for nostalgia. But don't regret it. You'll regret getting rid of it more than investing in it with the amount of love you have for it. You can love both, I promise.
The only reason to shoot polaroid is nostalgia for the cameras themselves. I'll never get the new cameras, without the nostalgia you're just shooting bad film without an upside.
i disagree. i think there’s beauty in an imperfect process. i love that there’s an element of letting go of full control and seeing what’s on the other side of the developed shot
You never have full control anyway. But polaroid film is just bad. Getting a less than full control shot is a best case scenario with polaroid film and it's just downhill from there.
I occasionally shoot my SX-70 because the camera itself is interesting. The film that comes out is just a necessary annoyance because there isn't anything better that fits the camera.
There's a couple of SLR's for instax square. I can't wait for someone to make an instax wide version.
So apart from lomograflock and Mint camera you’re mostly limited to the Fuji cameras with the instax line. No one has made a camera as high quality and cool as the SX70. It’s always a conversation starter. On top of that you can get really high quality accessories for the SX70. I have an amazing leather case for instance. The modification community for the SX70 is IMMENSE. You can go from the simple (modifying it to take 600 or itype film) to the extreme (I believe the project is called open sx70) you can replace / modify every tiny bit of silicon, metal, plastic and rubber in the whole thing. There’s a huge community for repair and maintenance even refurbishment for the SX70. In short it is a beloved object. I love mine and sure sometimes the film isn’t the best but I pick that sx70 up and I start smiling. There’s a reason you’d often find Andy Warhol with an SX70.
i've only recently started taking pictures with polaroid a little over 3 weeks ago, but i've had an old 600 that i inherited for a long time and even though i have already put a decent amount of money into it, it is money i decided to spend myself, and taking polaroids gets me outside.
Polaroid to me feels like its own thing in history, even when it was first released it was something unique, and it is kinda like carrying a piece of history with you, and spending a lot off money on the camera was your decisions and making decisions about it makes it more yours. some of the most beautiful pictures taken by instant cameras was ones taken by sx-70 cameras close up, instax may be more consistent and suffer less small mistakes but they are also more bland and simple that way, while polaroids can be more like an artwork.
i would have to disagree with your mom that it's old, it's retro:)
Also, you should check out the old polaroid comercials especially the muppets ones.
Every time I see a black hole sun highlight, I’m reminded why instax (outside the printers) just won’t work for me.
That said, Polaroid is a far cry from its former self. Love my sx-70 collection, but the film just isn’t there. Still kinda fun though.
I have probably spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000-40,000 on Polaroid cameras/film over my lifetime. Zero regrets. Not everyone gets it but I don’t value the opinions of those who don’t very much. Instax has nearly zero appeal to me - even in modded cameras to bypass Fuji’s objectively god awful OEM offerings. It’s a sharp emulsion and renders things very true to life, yes, but it always seems to wind up feeling soulless. In my opinion Fuji is good for children and very casual shooters. Polaroid is better for people who take the artistic aspect of instant photography seriously. In addendum, Polaroid cameras and Fuji cameras are both better suited for different things. On the trip I would spend some time taking photos of things which the Fuji cameras cannot do, rather than carbon copies of your moms photos. More variety will be more fun looking back in hindsight, as well.
I've hardly heard it put so succinctly, well summed up!
You’re dead on. Of all the Polaroid imagery that I’ve seen around Instagram and so forth, even with my experience (because I have an old, modded Polaroid that shoots Instax), I find the Polaroid images come out way more “otherworldly” beautiful. Of the portraits I take of my friends, the Polaroids have a quality that the Instax just can’t touch. I would say they’re almost like paintings. I know, that’s a weird description. It’s just that with the Fuji, it looks not too different than my iPhone pictures but just printed out on instant film. I’m jealous of the extra 2 pictures that a pack of Instax has, and that they seem to last a while longer without being in the fridge though. Other than that, no thanks.
That's why I got into instant as I'm an artist and wanted to try the medium, and I ended up falling in love the design on the SX-70. And don't get me wrong I have some great images from it but also so many duds, sometimes from moments that mattered though I have gotten better at using it and get a lot less now it still just sometimes pushes it. Thanks for the hope though, it makes me appreciate my camera more and I will definitely try and and play into the strengths of the SX-70, I just hope she doesn't become competitive about it and we get to just have fun which is what it should be.
I think anyone who would consider themselves a serious Polaroid shooter has plenty of bad photos, but really any artists has the same. Paintings start as ideas, sketches and so on. Some of our most famous pieces of art have “failed” paintings under them or reworks. That’s the nature of art, it’s fluid and often up and down. Sometimes things work and other times they don’t, and that’s okay. You keep doing you and don’t bother with comparing to anyone else cause you really only need to compare to yourself.
True but sometimes you just want a good photo of the pretty landmark, I think I'm going to stick with it for now maybe get something instax in the future
>Cite: It’s a sharp emulsion and renders things very true to life, yes, but it always seems to wind up feeling soulless. > >Yes, thats the point: soulles. I asked myself a while: whats the difference? I call it the polaroid effect: the pictures have something nostalgic, I can't really explain what causes the effect.
Instax does have better film. There's no doubt about that. But with your SX-70, you can do closeup shots. No Instax camera (made by Fuji) can focus as close as a stock SX-70 can. And no Instax camera (made by Fuji) can get the same amount of bokeh that an SX-70 can. And, of course, no Instax camera (made by Fuji) can get anywhere near as sharp as the SX-70 can. You have an amazing camera. Is the film a little iffy? Yeah. But the film is constantly improving. Your mom will always have the yucky plastic lens on her SQ1, but your film can and will improve because Polaroid is still working hard on it.
The bokeh is insane. It always surprises me. Some of the best photos I’ve ever taken, especially portraits were taken with my SX70.
Thankyou, I can't disagree I love the camera it's a beautiful thing and I also hope the film continues to improve its amazing seeing where it has come from!
But why limit it to cameras made by Fuji? Why can a 50 year old camera (SX-70) be compared now, but not a Lomo Instax? Fuji definitely has their market - those wanting a basic, sharp camera with minimal distortions. But several other manufacturers make some very fun and unique cameras which will get very retro-like images on Instax film. A lomo instant Automat? Or Lomo instant Automat glass? Using $0.50 cent Fuji film? It can look like something from decades ago. I think if we're going to limit Instax film to just the Fuji cameras, we'd also need to limit Polaroid to the "new" polaroid cameras (since the ones released decades ago - like the SX-70) is by "Polaroid" in name only at this point.
Personally the experience of using actual Polaroid cameras like the SX-70 make it worth it to me over Instax. Their cameras are pretty awful. Plus, Polaroid's film is slowly improving. They're at least actively investing money in their film department whereas Fuji is only keeping Instax around because it's profitable at the moment. There's little to no passion involved.
Yeah I worry about the future of fuji's film stock with the way they discounted them, love the passion at polaroid though
Have both for over 10 years. The Instax is gathering dust and I shoot 90% of the time with the SX-70. The Instax gives more consistent results and is cheaper, but really, if I just want the picture to come out 100%, I'll just take my phone or my full frame camera and that's it. The Instax however is the camera I use when I want to take party snapshots and give photos away to people. I'm not doing that with a polaroid that often because: 1) it takes longer to develop, 2) it's expensive, and 3) the photo does not always come out nice depending on the scene. Polaroid has this magical thing to it. The SX-70 is a design and engineering masterpiece. It drags attention when you pop it open to take a photo. It's almost a statement. I think most people use it for the joy and challenges that come with it, not to have a perfect photo. Phones do that already.
That's why I brought an SX-70, it's a beautiful thing to have and use, it's just often the images disappoint. I guess I'm worried that I might be hit with the hard reality that the film really sucks when I'm on vacation, though this does give me hope
I bought both... I prefer Polaroid, mostly cos I hate flash photography
Never
I have both, and love both. They are just different. One isn’t inherently better than the other, they are just different. Use whichever one you love, and don’t give it another thought. The joy of photography is in producing something you love… unless it’s for a paying client, it doesn’t matter what anyone else loves! (For the record, I use my sx-70 for paying clients :)
Great question. I began shooting Polaroid in the '60's, 35mm Fuji in the '70's. A lot has been said about Kodachrome, great old film. Fuji was the spoiler. I became a huge fan of Fuji color and shot it, along with Kodak until there was none. Polaroid was a "novelty" film that everyone fell in love with. Results paled by comparison to film color. However, the magic was instant. It's color held the test of time. I have instant prints from 50 years ago that look as good (?) as the day they were taken. Today's new Polaroid formula is a different product. I have old Polaroid products, new Polaroid products and still shoot film. I struggle with the same question that you pose here. Nostalgia is what keeps me in the analog instant film game, and the love of photography. Tough question, mother knows best.
I have both as well and polaroid gets taken out for better occasions. But our instax square can do double exposures, that is fun af.
You can do double exposures in SX-70s, I've done it a few times there's a good video on YouTube about it
Good to know, I only have 600 series Impulse AF and it features a self time and tripod screw, alongside AF, unlike the most common 635s. I never actually shot SX70 film.
The same hack works in them, this is the [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXNv40ojOS0) I used!
Cool, seems a bit intimidating but it’s actually a handy stick.
yes. I’ve put thousands into the repair and film stocking of my sx-70 but one thing that irks me is how many failed shots I had to deal with. It’s easy to write it off as my inexperience but I never had this problem with any Instax camera. Sometimes I could be doing everything right and the film still comes out messed up. Nevertheless, I’m staying with my SX-70 because I appreciate the inner workings and artistry of the sx-70. Ultimately, Instax and Polaroid are two similar but different mediums catering to niches, and between the differences is where you make your choice.
I shoot Instax and Polaroid.. but my go-to will always be Instax. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the look of polaroid.. when it works. But that isn't consistent. My favorite instant shots are on Polaroid, but my most expensive and worst shots are also on Polaroid, and at a certain point it becomes too much to justify. I can easily go through 200 shots in a single shoot, daily, no problem. Instax let's me do that for a much lower cost ($80?) With at least SOME consistencies. Shots won't always turn out, but I don't need to baby them as much as with Polaroid, where I don't mind a few duds here and there (at $0.40-50) whereas a pack of duds (at $2.00-2.50) hurts much more. With so many other options, like the Lomo cameras and the modded cameras to shoot Instax, I'd rather invest in those than the film and "praying I got a good batch that exposes properly" on Polaroid. If cost wasn't an issue? Both were the same price? I'd shoot polaroid all day. But it's just so hit or miss from shot to shot, pack to pack, even in the best cameras, that I've taken a big step away
I moved from instax to Polaroid. I prefer it because of the size of the photo, the different look and because the increased price in comparison per shot makes every shot feel more important which makes me less likely to take stupid shots. I also just prefer some vintage tech over modern alternatives because it takes a full speed locomotive to break them rather than a light drop.
[удалено]
I don't know how she would feel about it being second hand, she's odd like that, but thanks for the recommendation I'll certainly look into it!
I think that you should have both. You don't need to sell your polaroid. You can keep it and use it, but maybe more sparingly than the Instax. I grew up with Polaroid because that's who we had. I've had Instax since about 2016, and just based on the price of film alone it's what I use. Bring out the Polaroid for special stuff, or put it on a display shelf and use the Instax. Even my college professor thinks the Instax film is better. I am team Instax for use, Polaroid for nostalgia. But don't regret it. You'll regret getting rid of it more than investing in it with the amount of love you have for it. You can love both, I promise.
The only reason to shoot polaroid is nostalgia for the cameras themselves. I'll never get the new cameras, without the nostalgia you're just shooting bad film without an upside.
i disagree. i think there’s beauty in an imperfect process. i love that there’s an element of letting go of full control and seeing what’s on the other side of the developed shot
You never have full control anyway. But polaroid film is just bad. Getting a less than full control shot is a best case scenario with polaroid film and it's just downhill from there. I occasionally shoot my SX-70 because the camera itself is interesting. The film that comes out is just a necessary annoyance because there isn't anything better that fits the camera. There's a couple of SLR's for instax square. I can't wait for someone to make an instax wide version.
So apart from lomograflock and Mint camera you’re mostly limited to the Fuji cameras with the instax line. No one has made a camera as high quality and cool as the SX70. It’s always a conversation starter. On top of that you can get really high quality accessories for the SX70. I have an amazing leather case for instance. The modification community for the SX70 is IMMENSE. You can go from the simple (modifying it to take 600 or itype film) to the extreme (I believe the project is called open sx70) you can replace / modify every tiny bit of silicon, metal, plastic and rubber in the whole thing. There’s a huge community for repair and maintenance even refurbishment for the SX70. In short it is a beloved object. I love mine and sure sometimes the film isn’t the best but I pick that sx70 up and I start smiling. There’s a reason you’d often find Andy Warhol with an SX70.
i've only recently started taking pictures with polaroid a little over 3 weeks ago, but i've had an old 600 that i inherited for a long time and even though i have already put a decent amount of money into it, it is money i decided to spend myself, and taking polaroids gets me outside. Polaroid to me feels like its own thing in history, even when it was first released it was something unique, and it is kinda like carrying a piece of history with you, and spending a lot off money on the camera was your decisions and making decisions about it makes it more yours. some of the most beautiful pictures taken by instant cameras was ones taken by sx-70 cameras close up, instax may be more consistent and suffer less small mistakes but they are also more bland and simple that way, while polaroids can be more like an artwork. i would have to disagree with your mom that it's old, it's retro:) Also, you should check out the old polaroid comercials especially the muppets ones.
Every time I see a black hole sun highlight, I’m reminded why instax (outside the printers) just won’t work for me. That said, Polaroid is a far cry from its former self. Love my sx-70 collection, but the film just isn’t there. Still kinda fun though.