Exhibition Review: 8x10 By Impossible

Impossible 8X10 Test Film by Thom Jackson, 2012

The discontinuation of Polaroid film in 2008 led to much despair among its fans. Adherents missed the instant gratification and the immediate one-of-a-kind appeal of what since its introduction in the 1940s had become a classic medium. The Impossible Project, Founded in 2008, set out to recreate the out-of-production films that Polaroid users had come to depend on. Initially they focused on consumer-oriented films for the most popular Polaroid cameras, but recently they branched out into a new stock for professional users who yearned to use their large format 8x10 cameras with an instant film.

In advance of this film becoming available to the wider public, The Impossible Project shared it with some of their test users - photographers they call their 'Pioneers.' From the work of these Pioneers, the company aimed to create an exhibition illustrating what beautiful results are possible with their film. 

This engaging and charming show at the Impossible Project’s gallery space in New York City showcases the talents of 13 photographers. With each photographer displaying between 2 and 4 images, the exhibition presents work exclusively done using a newly engineered monochrome film that is designed to approximate the 8x10 Polaroid emulsions of days gone by. 

Impossible 8X10 Test Film by Bill Phelps, 2012 Impossible 8X10 Test Film by Chloe Aftel, 2012

The varied work within the gallery, all 8x10 monochromes, contains a variety of genres and artistic vision. For me, highlights include Chloe Aftel’s ethereal portraits, Bill Phelp's formal and pleasingly arranged still-lifes, Tim Mantoani’s studies of what seems to be the interior of a surf-shop, Alan Marcheselli's theatrical nudes, and Thom Jackson’s classic studio portraiture with a stunning model.

The show is unified by film itself - its timeless effect achieved through its particular density, texture, and level of detail. The output ranges from the silvery to the sepia, with the same film yielding different results depending on variations of the environment in which the film’s chemicals air dry. Because of its nature, the process necessarily involves surprising results.

Impossible 8X10 Test Film by Alan Marcheselli, 2012

To get a sense of what this show offers, try to imagine pictures that are a wonderful hybrid of the sensibility often associated large format photography (with its deliberate and careful composition) mixed with the look of lomography or toy cameras, (full of unpredictability and whimsy). This quirky and fascinating exhibition is well worth a visit for people in and around New York. For everyone else - you'll have to wait for the (inevitable) book. 

8x10 By Impossible is open from August 23rd - September 11 (entrance free), Hours:  Monday-Friday 11am-7pm, Saturday-Sunday 12pm-6pm. The exhibition is located at the Impossible Project NYC, Space 425 Broadway, 5th Floor, New York City


Adam Koplan is head of the Performance Department at the Dreamyard Project which brings arts programs to NYC schools. He is also Artistic Director of The Flying Carpet Theatre Co. Follow him on Twitter @FlyingCarpetNYC 

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by dpreview.com or any affiliated companies.

Comments

Total comments: 85
Doug Frost
By Doug Frost (Sep 4, 2012)

This film is wonderful for a photographer who is after a very specific look that its unique flaws and tonalities produce. But after a short while I would expect its appeal to wear off for most.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Sep 4, 2012)

How is it about Digital photography?

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Sep 4, 2012)

It isn't, specifically. Although you could make a compelling case that there's a clear line between Polaroid/instant film and digital imaging. But ultimately this is about photography and you're free not to read it.

6 upvotes
Ken Noelsch
By Ken Noelsch (Sep 4, 2012)

I do not belive that aby digital imager chip has been made,
that is 4x5 in. or larger.
Does 4x5, 8x10, or larger file provide capabilities
that digital imaging has not yet reached?
Yes some very specialized imaging systems image a large area,
but usualy involve several chips butted to each other
(physically or digitally) or a scanning system.
I have seen articles of cameras using up to 20x24 inches.

0 upvotes
Uaru
By Uaru (Sep 5, 2012)

It is also about feel. And about fun.

Last year at my company's Christmas party as a volunteer I brought 4x5 Tachihara camera with Polaroid back. Imagine, people were standing in 70m queue just to get this Polaroid photo. Some waited for almost 2 hours! It beats me why, but it was fun.
I would have never experience anything like that if I brought just my Nikon D700.

2 upvotes
Uaru
By Uaru (Sep 4, 2012)

I am surprised to see such a news here. It is not that I find it boring. I am myself interested in large format photography and I read it with great interest - I just thought it is just outside of the scope of this portal.

I find it very inspiring that some people do.

4 upvotes
D Gold
By D Gold (Sep 4, 2012)

Great article. I shoot lots of both digital and film, (over 3 decades worth of film, in fact), and I am convinced that just like vacuum tube technology, film will have its niche and there is still a lot of great cameras out there for next to nothing nowadays.

While Kodak may wind up being just a memory, just like GE and Sylvania leaving the tube days behind them, niche manufacturers emerged and we have a thriving industry for musicians and audiophiles. Vinyl records, same thing.

Ilford appears committed to this niche future and they make great products.

So go shoot digital, I love it like many others. But if you have never shot film, it is a great experience and the images can be breathtaking as well.

Just a perspective.

6 upvotes
CKDexterHaven
By CKDexterHaven (Sep 4, 2012)

People who call hipsters "hipsters" are much worse than the hipsters.

3 upvotes
J Parker
By J Parker (Sep 4, 2012)

DPReview, thank you for another fascinating article. Unfortunately, there will always be those who reject anything inconsistent with their view of what photography should be. As much as I like reading the equipment reviews, many of us appreciate your willingness to expose your readers to the tremendous mosaic of mediums and techniques in photography. Even the comments were informative (I now know what Cibachrome is -- wow).

10 upvotes
doady
By doady (Sep 3, 2012)

Interesting article, beautiful photos. Somehow I guessed just from reading the headline that the gearheads would be upset by this article and make negative comments and childish insults, and I was not wrong.

8 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Sep 3, 2012)

I personally like what is happening here. With the new take on the old. This is for those people who practice it, a great opportunity to cross a bridge in time and into a different cultural and artistic norm. The most creative artists like anywher else, will use the opportunity to add to the great past and appreciate that revisiting nostalgia needs to always take both ‘the now’ and ‘the future’ into account to remain relevant as art. I also like it because it is here.

4 upvotes
xavicomas
By xavicomas (Sep 3, 2012)

Having this medium available could offer possibilities to some, other than that the photographs shown here are replicas of photography from the 70's. This has been done so many times. It is easy to justify anything because of the medium itself. I don't think that using Polaroid will make your work more interesting alone. Photography is evolving, it is being trascended, and we are being liberated from the tradition. Tradition is the illusion of permanence. Embrace the change.

1 upvote
D Gold
By D Gold (Sep 4, 2012)

>This has been done so many times.

So has most every subject shot in digital today. Just a perspective, but there is such a thing as "participating in the art form". :-)

1 upvote
Lea5
By Lea5 (Sep 3, 2012)

Very good stuff. It is nice to see creative work. For the ones here who say this is crappy hipsters stuff, it must be hard for you getting old and oldfashioned. Time goes on and a new Zeitgeist will be born, with or without you.

5 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Sep 4, 2012)

New zeitgeist? Same as the old zeitgeist. This is very well executed, but it's simply an attempt to replicate the past. If this is the new zeitgiest I am obviously about 80 years younger than anyone else here.

Hey, lets all go paint like Renoir.

1 upvote
D Gold
By D Gold (Sep 4, 2012)

>Hey, lets all go paint like Renoir.

Every art form has repetition - yet I have seen modern oil paintings that are masterpieces. Same with film, same with digital. Nobody shooting digital today is doing anything "original" since the first digital picture was taken.

Just a perspective.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Sep 5, 2012)

My point was these photos are deliberately trying to look like the past, and successfully so, but that does not equate with the term "zeitgeist".

I could use the same film (or any film or digital) to shoot unique, modern work. This is not about the medium it's about style.

0 upvotes
Rocker44
By Rocker44 (Sep 3, 2012)

Interesting stuff, though I can never see me getting hold of large format camera.

As for the reaction, I am never surprised when the crowd on DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY REVIEW fails to see the point of niché film projects.

It's just a medium for creating & representing an idea. I think it's good that the Impossible Project is still going, show's there is a market for it, regardless of the type of trouser the market wears, isn't that a good thing?

6 upvotes
kodachromeguy
By kodachromeguy (Sep 4, 2012)

Sadly, I also am not surprised that some of the readers completely miss the point of a project like this that tries to revive a fantastic photographic medium. As for an 8x10" camera: you could buy one at surprisingly low price. You also need a light meter and tripod, which most serious photographers already have in their inventory.

1 upvote
GordonAtWork
By GordonAtWork (Sep 2, 2012)

I wish someone would recreate Kodachrome 25 or 64 or Ektachrome 200. these were my film choices back in the day. A Cibachrome print will outlast ANY modern day inkjet/dye transfer/laser print etc and the quality of the prints surpasses anything printable today.
Digital has been the evolutionary step in photgraphy but Instagram isn't really the "ooh I like that" process.

8 upvotes
tem00
By tem00 (Sep 3, 2012)

Man, I forgot all about Cibachrome. It was great stuff.

4 upvotes
sansbury
By sansbury (Sep 3, 2012)

OK, they were gorgeous, BUT, expensive! And you were at the mercy of your lab, and even the good ones weren't 100%.

Also, I think the "original" for archival purposes is the information--the data--and that has the potential to be preserved with a purity beyond any photographic process yet seen. Yes, we'll need to actively protect against format and storage medium obsolescence, but I think that will turn out to be a smaller deal than people think, especially with images judged to be worth saving 100+ years after they were taken. It's not as if preserving physical images doesn't require active conservation of some expense....

0 upvotes
achim k
By achim k (Sep 3, 2012)

I remember my own words about 20 years ago (or more): "when Kodachrome is discontinued, I will quit photography".....
yes, and for a few Cibachrome-prints I spent many many hours, but still have them
Now I´m with Canon 5D and love it.

1 upvote
makofoto
By makofoto (Sep 5, 2012)

Unfortunately Cibachrome chemistry was bad for the environment. I spent many many hours printing ciba's ... loved that metallic quality that one could get.

0 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Sep 2, 2012)

Hipster douchebags everywhere rejoice.....

10 upvotes
Photogeeklady
By Photogeeklady (Sep 3, 2012)

Hipsters don't shoot large format cameras...

9 upvotes
kodachromeguy
By kodachromeguy (Sep 4, 2012)

No: large format = bulky equipment, some expense, thinking, precision craftsmanship, and understanding the basics of sensitometry.

0 upvotes
psn
By psn (Sep 5, 2012)

Dumb@sses rejoice!

0 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (Sep 2, 2012)

There are some good articles on the firm's web site.

4 upvotes
alfredo_tomato
By alfredo_tomato (Sep 2, 2012)

To those hating on the images:

I think pop music sucks, but then I'm not the target audience. Maybe you are not the target audience of the Impossible Project.

10 upvotes
Photogeeklady
By Photogeeklady (Sep 2, 2012)

For those of you on this thread that are mis informed. May I just clear up a few things....

1)The Impossible Project CANNOT reproduce Polaroid film. Due to the destruction of machinery, chemical extinction and change of environmental laws. The old Polaroid medium is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve.

2) 4x5 CANNOT be made by The Impossible Project at this time. They saved the last remaining Polaroid factory in the Netherlands. And accidentally came across the 8x10 & 20x24 machinery. All 4x5 was destroyed by Polaroid.

Here are some articles about The Impossible Project to get your facts straight. Have a lovely day.

Wired UK
http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2009/12/features/the-impossible-project-reviving-instant-photography?page=all

NY Times Lens
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/reinventing-instant-film-in-an-age-of-instant-imagery/

British Journal of Photography
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2200240/impossible-revives-8x10-instant-film-gallery

4 upvotes
Dave Luttmann
By Dave Luttmann (Sep 4, 2012)

Hate to break this to you...but they are indeed working on 4x5 film. As well, check out the types of film they produce for Polaroid cameras.

It appears it's you who need to get their facts straight.

1 upvote
Jun2
By Jun2 (Sep 2, 2012)

If you don't want it, that's fine. But don't tell these people to pick up a camera like yours and to be like you. They want to be them not you. They want their photographs look different from yours.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
15 upvotes
Louis Dallara
By Louis Dallara (Sep 2, 2012)

Interesting work, more interesting are the people who would undertake such a project.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
9 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Sep 2, 2012)

As much as I appreciate the effort on the impossible project, I do wish they would come up with a more 'professional' product. I missed the Polaroid Type 55 film in 4x5" and would love to try it, but it still is ... well ... impossible.

Maybe there is more hope in the new55 project: http://new55project.blogspot.de

1 upvote
edfo4
By edfo4 (Sep 2, 2012)

Nice work. Wish I lived near NYC.

4 upvotes
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (Sep 2, 2012)

A related story perhaps is the rescue of the 20x24 large format Polariod camera system.

http://www.20x24studio.com/

4 upvotes
bbjorkum
By bbjorkum (Sep 2, 2012)

It's terrible. It's terrbile and unpredictable. And this crappy stuff causes Fuji to discontinue their excellent line of accurate, perfect instant films?

1 upvote
Photogeeklady
By Photogeeklady (Sep 2, 2012)

The Impossible Project makes completely different film than Fuji. There is absolutely NO competition here. You may want to get your facts straight.

6 upvotes
bbjorkum
By bbjorkum (Sep 3, 2012)

I know it's a completely different film. But it could very well still take market shares from Fuji.

0 upvotes
Darcy Perkins
By Darcy Perkins (Sep 3, 2012)

No. No it couldn't.

2 upvotes
car crocodile
By car crocodile (Sep 4, 2012)

Well. Yes. Yes it could. I sell camera's at my workplace, and we sell Fuji Instant film and also the cameras. People come in ALL THE time asking for Polariod cameras, and seeings that its impossible (nearly) to get them into the store and are only available online, the customers, dissapointingly almost, always compinsantitly get the fuji as it is easier to get film and is available in stores. So in actual fact, Fuji will loose huge amounts of sales if Polariod was easier to get as Polariod is a much 'cooler' and 'trendier' brand for mass consumers, as bbjorkum suggested earlier.

2 upvotes
nawknai
By nawknai (Sep 2, 2012)

Finally, hipsters have a new type of film that they each discovered before his/her friends ever heard about it.

This is no more genuine than Instagram, so I don't see the point. Just use Instagram. This is just another example of the "bad is good" counter-culture hipsters trying to replicate a look and feel that existed in the past because of limited and imperfect processes and technology. Anything like this is going to be inauthentic anyway, as you're only getting these results by intentionally creating "bad technology". This is not a question of digital vs. film. This is more about film vs other film. In fact, compared to real Polaroid film, this is awful. It's like beta release of Polaroid film, before they perfected the recipe.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
15 upvotes
Photogeeklady
By Photogeeklady (Sep 2, 2012)

If you who think this is a 'hipster' film and believe that Instagram can replace film. You are completely missing the point. And you clearly don't have any idea what it is like to shoot film, instant film or large format.

I am an avid Instagram user, however Impossible is NOT trying to replicate a 'vintage looking medium'. They literally are just endeavoring to create instant film. The 'look' is a by product and NOT intentional in the slightest.

See here: for more information
Wired UK
http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2009/12/features/the-impossible-project-reviving-instant-photography?page=all

5 upvotes
oss
By oss (Sep 2, 2012)

@nawknai

Polaroid ultra large format prints were something special, simply because of the sheer size of the medium and the quality of the dyes, it had nothing to do with retro look or bad technology.

No way was the Polaroid process 'Bad Technology' read some history. (I do appreciate that you are commenting on the impossible project but give them a chance)

If someone manages to reverse engineer the process then good on them, it's unlikely to ever be cheap but diversity is a good thing.

4 upvotes
kdaphoto
By kdaphoto (Sep 2, 2012)

I'm a 52 year old professional photographer who doesn't wear skinny jeans but does use instagram a lot. By your definition I'm a hipster. I think you need to work on that definition.

2 upvotes
Caleido
By Caleido (Sep 3, 2012)

When was the last time you and your friends created an chemical process to develop instant film from scratch with almost no means?

And claiming "they make it look bad, so they can be hipsters" is just even more stupid.

4 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Sep 3, 2012)

This is pure hipster, and that's coming from a big advocate for shooting on film.
Film emulsions are about consistency. Knowing what type to use to produce the look you have in mind, which is most suitable for the subject. And then being able to go back to the same film years later and get the same result.
Impossible film is less about caring for the end result, and more (thus far) about just doing it cause 'Hey! I'm shooting with a Polaroid! I'm so retro!'. Just like most instagrammers apply a random filter and not put much thought into the result, Impossible film is about the same thing.

1 upvote
Clean
By Clean (Sep 4, 2012)

A film is not hipster. A process is not hipster. The person who uses it is. I live in NYC and I see a lot of clowns in every photo show I go to walking around with the Leicas slung around their necks. Really? You needed it for the show? That's hipster. That's pretentious. The Leica is not. We all know it is a great photographic tool. Impossible film in the right hands can make art. In the wrong hands it's just an SX-70 next to a pork pie hat.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Caleido
By Caleido (Sep 4, 2012)

@ fmian
Did you even read the first words about the background story?

A small group of dedicated employees from a closed and striped Polaroid factory in The Netherlands are using what is left of the machinery and intellectual property (almost nothing) to create a NEW instant film from scratch. Only because of their love for instant film. And because they spend most of their life working with it.

How those veterans can be compared to teens using Instagram and wearing nerdy glasses and skinny pants is beyond my comprehension.

0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Sep 4, 2012)

@ Caleido
I know the history of Impossible.
I was not implying the staff are hipster, but rather the nature of the medium whereby it is unpredictable and inconsistent. Much like the results one gets with a holga camera, and how many holga users are classed as hipsters.
I incorrectly mentioned instagrammers, as with instagram you at least have an option to choose what the end result is, so you could take a series of photos, several years apart, and still produce the same look.

1 upvote
magneto shot
By magneto shot (Sep 2, 2012)

let it go guys.... embrace the new dawn. typewriters are long gone....

10 upvotes
Iskender
By Iskender (Sep 2, 2012)

You'll pay for the digital large format bellows cameras then?

1 upvote
nawknai
By nawknai (Sep 2, 2012)

No, I could take a Galaxy S3, install Instagram, and shoot a better quality photo filled with equally synthetic flaws, and be even more "instant" due to the LCD screen.

10 upvotes
Dave Luttmann
By Dave Luttmann (Sep 2, 2012)

No you can't

7 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (Sep 2, 2012)

True artists won't necessarily embrace modern technology the way gadget geeks do.

11 upvotes
kdaphoto
By kdaphoto (Sep 2, 2012)

Tell that to all those behind the resurgence of vinyl records.

4 upvotes
kodachromeguy
By kodachromeguy (Sep 4, 2012)

Wow, some of you people really do totally miss the point.

0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Sep 2, 2012)

What is the point when this impossible emulsion is junk compared to the genuine Polaroid stuff? Even expired polaroid looks better than what Impossible is doing.
And using their paying customers as a test bed is just sad considering the asking price.
No consistency. Fades very fast. and colours/tones are random.

Not a commentary on the artists involved, but why do it when you don't know what the results will look like?

13 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (Sep 3, 2012)

Why is it so difficult for them to make decent B&W Polaroid?

Polaroid's original patents must be expired and publicly available - and they apparently have the original manufacturing equipment.

Someone could probably get technically better results making 8x10 glass plates in their basement and contact prints from those.

2 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Sep 3, 2012)

I know one guy here in Sydney who has made a better emulsion for himself in his own lab. Why impossible can't do it is beyond my understanding.

1 upvote
fmian
By fmian (Sep 4, 2012)

Ahh, I just asked him and was told they likely don't want to pay the royalty fees for use of the emulsion. Which is insane considering the price one pays for Impossible film.

1 upvote
jeffcpix
By jeffcpix (Sep 2, 2012)

If there's a market and someone willing to produce, distribute
and sell it -- why not? One of the great things about the web is that it allows
niche markets to be easily served.

Except for the almost immediate gratification (digital is far
more immediate), not to mention the almost immediate disappointment
when glitches occur, one might as well expose a sheet of film,
just in case additional copies are desired.

1 upvote
pixtorial
By pixtorial (Sep 2, 2012)

Polaroid prints have often been undervalued in the photographic community. I don't know if it is something about the seemingly "amateurish" (itself an abused term) status of the film, the often imperfect results, or what. This has been true even more of large format Polaroid, even though it is a demonstrably capable medium on many levels and by artists of all caliber.

The overuse of digital techniques that emulate different analog processes should not be allowed to devalue the beauty of those processes. The unique, one-of-a-kind, and often stunning Polaroid print or transfer is a great example of this. Aesthetically some of these prints are not my favorite, but the medium is capable of much more than the art depicted here. Walker Evans and Ansel Adams are just two artists who demonstrated well the potential of the format.

To the nay sayers here, I guess all I can suggest is that you further explore the body of work in this medium before so easily condemning it...

9 upvotes
Dave Luttmann
By Dave Luttmann (Sep 2, 2012)

Simply beautiful to anyone with an eye. Looking forward to 4x5

1 upvote
Kelvin L
By Kelvin L (Sep 2, 2012)

I hope Impossible start releasing similar materials for the 4x5" format... fingers crossed

0 upvotes
PLShutterbug
By PLShutterbug (Sep 2, 2012)

Why? You'll end up with one-off 4x5 prints that cost a fortune and whose quality is dubious (as Scott so eloquently points about above).

8x10 prints as an art medium ... maybe. But 4x5? Really?

4 upvotes
Scott Eaton
By Scott Eaton (Sep 2, 2012)

I hate to buzz-kill, but what exactly is so amazing about these images other than being insipid and dull? Instagram effects are frequently regarded with a lot of disdain, but if the same effect is produced with 8x10 Polaroid (or similiar) process the thought-police declare it 'high fine art'. Puhleeeeeze.....

Large format film is a unique medium, and LF contact printing is a stunningly beautiful medium that we need to see more of. However, this is stuff is just more of the same old NY based counter-culture art critics declaring that 'worse is better'. No one was really interested in it 20years ago when film was at it's peak, and there's a reason.

24 upvotes
Ashley Pomeroy
By Ashley Pomeroy (Sep 2, 2012)

You've certainly calmed down, anyway; the sneer is still there. Not doing too well, are you?

3 upvotes
jorg14
By jorg14 (Sep 2, 2012)

Scott, you're right on, as 10 (to date) 'likes' testify to.
These photographs did grab my attention though.
Remember, content is king.

0 upvotes
mandophoto
By mandophoto (Sep 2, 2012)

Scott Eaton, you're a funny guy. Your comment epitomizes the jack-booted, though-police mentality so popular bricks.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Sep 2, 2012)

Stop it Scott, you're making the contrarians angry.

2 upvotes
Dan Weil
By Dan Weil (Sep 2, 2012)

These photographs are superb and the medium fascinating. I am not understanding. Now that the Pioneers have had their chance to explore the use of the film, can the rest of the humble masses buy it? It appears worth buying and learning to use an 8 x 10 camera. (Anyone have camera and lens suggestions?)

5 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Sep 2, 2012)

Dan......the whole point with 8x10 is the superior image quality. Why would you want to shoot this garbage when there are still so many quality films out there. Want instant images, shoot digital....want film....then buy the good stuff and enjoy the amazing look and quality you can get from 8x10.

If you like the look of these images you can shoot film or digital and get the same effect with 30 secs in PS.

2 upvotes
vFunct
By vFunct (Sep 2, 2012)

Sweet! I still have my hand-crank 8x10 polaroid film processor & view camera.. just need to buy back some lenses.

PROTIP: This is one of the few techniques one can use to create photos without any electricity. Large-format lenses have spring shutters, and the Polaroid film can be processed by hand-cranking!

4 upvotes
meanwhile
By meanwhile (Sep 2, 2012)

You'll be ready for the zombie apocalypse.

4 upvotes
KitHB
By KitHB (Sep 2, 2012)

Not strictly true about the zero electricity, because your hand-held Weston light meter generates a tiny amount of electricity from its selenium photocell, just enough to drive the moving coil attached to the meter needle the correct distance across the (analogue) dial.

Here's one. http://scruss.com/enterprise.net/weston/

I learned about light with one of these. Absolutely excellent when using Ansel Adams' zone system for controlling exposure.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Sep 2, 2012)

Sunny 16 rule needs no electricity!

0 upvotes
MartinaB
By MartinaB (Sep 2, 2012)

Just beautiful. Photography is amazing now, but it was amazing back when. I have done some big format work and there is something intangible , hard to describe about it. If you can go see the show! If you can, buy an old 8x10 and try this film. Be patient and you will be rewarded.

3 upvotes
Jacques_t
By Jacques_t (Sep 2, 2012)

There will always be a difference of opinion. I appreciate the artistry that goes into these. Comparing these to digital would be like comparing a real watercolour image to a digital one. You simply can't. With the real thing the artist gets to work his medium by hand, see it as it develops and enjoys working with the materials outside the digital environment as opposed to sitting behind a computer for 6 hours and twiddling Photoshop brushes and filters. Digital has it's place, so does this.

(sorry replied to your post rather than the article Martina)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 45 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
magneto shot
By magneto shot (Sep 2, 2012)

yup....digital has its place so does this...this belongs to the muzeum...leave it there...

1 upvote
imagemaker224
By imagemaker224 (Sep 3, 2012)

Amazing to my eyes, and unlike digital, these are one of a kind. There were a few people back in the day making 20 X 24 images as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20x24_Studio

2 upvotes
LadyGaGa
By LadyGaGa (Sep 3, 2012)

I've used 8x10 for decades and made tons of alternative process prints. I understand and embrace the concept of wabi-sabi. The examples shown are very creative and exploit the characteristics of the film.

Having said that I also think this product is way over priced CRAP and never plan to use it.

Youngsters purchase good film and support film manufacters this stuff is dodo.

Oops I'm repeating myself.

1 upvote
Boxbrownie
By Boxbrownie (Sep 3, 2012)

Its something for students to see.......but I had enough of Polaroid film carrying around a 5x4 MPP and huge Gitzo tripod when I was in my early twenties photographing architecture and ancient monuments, Polaroid was just a tool to verify and prove a shot, the real stuff was locked away in dark slides waiting for a dip in some D76........got to laugh though, some of those shots look just like stuff taken by me and my fellow students in the 70's in art college, definately better parties then!

1 upvote
BYRON MCD 77-81
By BYRON MCD 77-81 (Sep 4, 2012)

Ye, I was there , too. Don't know what the parties are like today as I live so far away. And who knows whatever happened to my double dark slides ?

1 upvote
Total comments: 85