Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera

i2-camera.polaroid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 119 posts

Re: The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera

#81

Post by igetspam »

tomjen3 wrote: post #78
can16358p wrote: post #49

600€ for an obsolete-era machine that sells imperfection as a "feature" (probably because they don't have anything else to sell, as even their website's sample photos are mediocre quality) that many will probably use once or twice and get bored and jump back to their iPhone/DSLR/mirrorless anyway? No thanks.

Yeah its completely pointless as a value proposition. I mean I just go done scanning all my predigital photos because analog photos suck. Why would anybody want this?

Because there are people with the opposite desires. My wife loves having photo albums. In fact, I have to run to CVS today to pick up some physical photos.

Re: The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera

#82

Post by tomjen3 »

igetspam wrote: post #81
tomjen3 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah its completely pointless as a value proposition. I mean I just go done scanning all my predigital photos because analog photos suck. Why would anybody want this?

Because there are people with the opposite desires. My wife loves having photo albums. In fact, I have to run to CVS today to pick up some physical photos.

I was overly dismissive in my comment. It would have been more correct to write "analog only" photos.

If you wife wants photo albums then it is pretty easy to order them with the photos you want and get any number of companies to make them. I don't have a problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is not having a single backup of my childhood if my apartment burns, not having access to my photos on the go, not being able to share my experiences with my family and so on.

By going digital first, I avoid all these problems.

Re: The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera

#83

Post by kotaKat »

vr46 wrote: post #30

My 600SE has been largely out for action for years, with only a trickle of film available. Results were predictable when Polaroid and Fuji peel-apart film were available. The modern Polaroid film is anything but predictable or even vaguely good, especially for the astronomical prices. Zink gives about the same qualities. Fuji Instax in all its forms won this battle and there’s a cottage industry of Instax-holding bac…

I think the worst, most damning thing they did was gutting and destroying the Spectra equipment to make Polaroid Go film and cameras.

I wish they'd work on getting film costs down rather than releasing overpriced toys. Instax is still kicking their ass for prices long-term.

Zink was a mistake that should have never been made. I've never had a quality print off a Zink printer.

Re: The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera

#84

Post by [deleted] »

igetspam wrote: post #80
can16358p wrote: post #49

600€ for an obsolete-era machine that sells imperfection as a "feature" (probably because they don't have anything else to sell, as even their website's sample photos are mediocre quality) that many will probably use once or twice and get bored and jump back to their iPhone/DSLR/mirrorless anyway? No thanks.

I hate using my phone as a camera. I own a digital camera for that reason. I don't own a good photo print because they are either ridiculously expensive or crap and I haven't found the good-cheap (of the "pick two" triangle) yet. I'm the market for this. I'd much rather keep my photos offline.

[deleted]

Re: The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera

#85

Post by rluhar »

crossroadsguy wrote: post #59
bpye wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ricoh are developing a new film camera under the Pentax brand - which may or may not make it to retail. IIRC not an SLR - but still in that direction. The only other “serious” option - as in not a Holga or something - that I can think of is Leica - but then you’re spending into the tens of thousands of dollars… Also not an SLR but it is interchangeable lens of course.

I am looking for an SLR. My best photography related memory is from a Nikon FM3A that I borrowed from a relative as a teenager for some time. Where I live there isn't an active used SLR market in a way that can be trusted and purchased. Maybe I will try my luck with one of the trusted sellers in the USA once someone from here is coming back. No, Leica is not an option - both on the price front and that not being an S…

I bought a Nikon FE2 recently from keh.com. There are plenty of manual focus film SLR cameras available. You may also want to try your local camera store. Mine has a good selection of used cameras and lenses. Things are more expensive than they used to be but there are still plenty of options available.

Re: The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera

#86

Post by igetspam »

tomjen3 wrote: post #82
igetspam wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there are people with the opposite desires. My wife loves having photo albums. In fact, I have to run to CVS today to pick up some physical photos.

I was overly dismissive in my comment. It would have been more correct to write "analog only" photos. If you wife wants photo albums then it is pretty easy to order them with the photos you want and get any number of companies to make them. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is not having a single backup of my childhood if my apartment burns, not having access to my photos on the go, not…

Again, opposite goals. I destroyed every bit of evidence from my childhood for personal reasons. I don't regret it. I spent most of my life avoiding cameras. That changed with marriage and a kid but I still don't let people take pictures of me with their phones because I have a compulsion for control. I also want to make absolutely sure that certain people can't find me, so no geotags or landmarks in digital form.

By avoiding digital photography, I reduce my risk significantly.

I'll take analog every day.

Edit: I'm not the target market. I have special considerations. My wife is though. She wants pictures. I want to stay somewhat incognito. This type of thing solves the problem better for us.

Re: The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera

#87

Post by GoofballJones »

can16358p wrote: post #49

600€ for an obsolete-era machine that sells imperfection as a "feature" (probably because they don't have anything else to sell, as even their website's sample photos are mediocre quality) that many will probably use once or twice and get bored and jump back to their iPhone/DSLR/mirrorless anyway? No thanks.

I used to be a professional photographer, and have been out of the game for about 10 years. For the last 15 years of my profession, I really embraced the digital SLR in my work.

But I still had a big 8x10 field camera that I would take portraits with. DSLRs totally took over the film world...and I would NEVER go back to 35mm or even medium format. But you can't get the same thing with digital that an 8x10 platinum contact print from a large format camera can give you. That's really the only time I can see using "obsolete" tech in photography. These Polaroid things can ALL be simulated in digital. Are they instant? No. Which is good.

Re: The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera

#88

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #64
can16358p wrote: post #49

600€ for an obsolete-era machine that sells imperfection as a "feature" (probably because they don't have anything else to sell, as even their website's sample photos are mediocre quality) that many will probably use once or twice and get bored and jump back to their iPhone/DSLR/mirrorless anyway? No thanks.

I don't think you understand the selling point of these. An ex of mine had a Polaroid, and had taken hundreds of pictures with friends and family, all cherished and passed to loved ones. There's something special and somehow human about small, candid, imperfect photos that hits just right on memory lane and evokes nostalgia. It's more than just what it presents, it's about what it represents, and about the experience…

Personally I've never had a problem re-experiencing events from digital photos. Often more so, because I take a good handful and get a sequence rather than just a single snap.

Aside from that - how did your ex manage to avoid fading?

Polaroids are absolutely notorious for yellow-fade. And the chemistry is weird and fragile.

It takes a month or so for the photo to fix. If you do anything to it in that time - cut off the white edges, squeeze it an album, expose it to light - the fading happens even more quickly.

Re: The new Polaroid I-2 instant camera

#89

Post by jug »

fragmede wrote: post #40
jug wrote: post #27

I have a hard time seeing this going anywhere. Features of lens sharpness and manual controls seem at odds with the intent of spontaneity and the lack of medium quality, so much of your effort is thrown away once you print. In none of their samples for aperture/shutter/auto did I even see the typical differences between the modes such as bokeh or motion softness due to let us say limited sensor size and print quality…

> You’ll also have digital copies to reproduce the Polaroids at will For the some of the remaining use cases for Polaroids, that's a bug, not a feature.

Ah right, but I was thinking of expansions to new audiences. But if you rather have this classic instant photo mindset, I was thinking the regular Instax models would do. My point is that this new model seems to have conflicting feature sets for reasons similar to yours.
Post reply on HN