ÂoeIt used to be something you use for a lighting test,â Ms. It may sound hokey, but TFA puts it pretty bluntly: Again, there's NOTHING digital that compares. That's for a 3" square image that's got virtually no redeeming technical qualities to it. There's also unexpired film still selling on ebay for well over $1/exposure. There are still enthusiasts who scour ebay only for long-expired Polaroids because of the unique color shifts that they give. Unfortunately, the film is now prohibitively expensive for shooting casually. It's a great date idea too if you can find the equipment.
Not to mention watching your picture develop almost magically as you shake it. Sure you can get functionally the same thing with any consumer point and shoot digital camera (take picture, check LCD, print later), but in comparison, the images you get can only be described as bland and mechanical. The tonal range, the color saturation: there's nothing digital that can compete. Why do I do this? The one or two keepers you do get are something special. The exposure has to be spot on or it'll turn our too dark to see through or virtually transparent. There's no cloning, airbrushing, leveling or curving. Send the film out for development, wait several days, and get back about 98% crap. Generally I'll take just one prime lens out for the afternoon and I won't finish until I'm out of film. Every once in a while I'll go out on a nice day and run a roll or two of slide film through my camera. I'm a hobbyist photographer and even though most of my gear is digital, there's something to be said for some of the old school methods. More than anything, Polaroids have a quirkiness and charm to them that isn't reproduced by anything else. It's not about megapixels or instant gratification. I'll give you a hint, it's got nothing to do with any of the bloody technical aspects of the film. I don't think anybody really understands the reason Polaroid is still a popular medium.
0 kommentar(er)
