|
MrBlandAverage posted:Yeah, this is my experience with FP-100C that's been sitting in the holder for a year. Also the chemicals may be really runny so be careful of that and the print will be more light sensitive. Examples of the color. (I think this was 3 or 4 years expired)  door by Nate Bolinger, on Flickr  mountains by Nate Bolinger, on Flickr  bird by Nate Bolinger, on Flickr Whitezombi fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Sep 28, 2015 |
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Ah ok, well I definitely wouldn't be leaving it in there for a year, maybe a few weeks to a month, so it hopefully shouldn't be too bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Ah ok, well I definitely wouldn't be leaving it in there for a year, maybe a few weeks to a month, so it hopefully shouldn't be too bad. Shouldn't be an issue. Keep it cool and out of direct light.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Am I correct in assuming that I am SOL if I already have film loaded into my land camera when I go through TSA at the end of this week?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
iSheep posted:Am I correct in assuming that I am SOL if I already have film loaded into my land camera when I go through TSA at the end of this week? You are fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Don't leave it in your checked bag though
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
I'm bringing it with me onto the plane. I ask here because I've seen conflicting information online about if it can be x-rayed or not. If one pass through the carry on xray doesn't effect anything then I wont even worry about asking for a hand check.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Several passes through the carry-on x-ray should be fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Perfect, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
iSheep posted:I'm bringing it with me onto the plane. I ask here because I've seen conflicting information online about if it can be x-rayed or not. If one pass through the carry on xray doesn't effect anything then I wont even worry about asking for a hand check. I've carried delta3200 with me to Vietnam and back. Just take it carry on and you are fine. Cosmic rays are a bigger concern.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
I'm done using painters tape for bleaching. It *always* gets under the negative. Scotch tape is next. E: holy loving artifacts flickr  Chi by Paul Frederiksen, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
75mm lenses and FP-100C on a 4x5 make for some fun times.  Untitled by TheJeffers, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:75mm lenses and FP-100C on a 4x5 make for some fun times. That's rad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 10:57
|
|
|
elgarbo posted:That's rad. Thanks! Another:  Untitled by TheJeffers, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:Thanks! Another: Lovely shot Jeffers. Anyways, vacation photos! Harpa in Reykjavik:  iceland fp-100c by Maciej, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
 Seal by Glenn Nielson, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
trampoline park on instax mini
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
 Untitled by TheJeffers, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:
Nice.  Untitled by Glenn Nielson, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Desire to know more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
is that instant 4x5
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Looks like it. Am I reading this right that there is only 5 exposures per box?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:is that instant 4x5 yep 365 Nog Hogger posted:Desire to know more. I gave the New55 Kickstarter 225 of my dollars. $15/shot isn't much more expensive than sealed late-dated Type 55 is on eBay these days, and it'll be much more likely to actually work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
I like the idea of telling someone you're bringing your polaroid camera to their party and showing up with a Chamonix
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Also dumb guy question: If the speed is 3200 like it says on the box, why is it called FP-3000b and not 3200b?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
I found what I think is a SX-70 for $5 and was wondering if it's worth grabbing for that price considering I'll have to use impossible film. The ad doesn't say SX-70 but I think I can tell from the photo :
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Buy it, if it is a SX-70 it'll sell for a lot more than $5 on eBay if you realise you don't want to use it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Yeah looking at the different models some more, it looks like it might be an SX-70 model 2. Hopefully it's all in working order.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
It is an SX-70. In fact ALL Polaroid cameras that aren't in the 600 series OR Spectra series are SX-70s. Non - folding. http://www.polamad.com/polaroidshop-SX70box.html Folding. http://www.polamad.com/polaroidshop-SX70.html If you open it up it will say exactly what it is on the front. If it works it is worth about $50-100 depending on the condition. If it doesn't work let me know and I can give you info on what to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
I missed out on the SX-70. Called them and said I could pick it up the next day. Called back the next day and they told me it was already sold, mistakenly to somebody else they thought was me. But I did find this: http://www.kijiji.ca/v-camera-camcorder-lens/edmonton/vintage-1969-polaroid-land-camera/1115967059?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
I was visiting my grandparents while on vacation and my grandmother had this Polaroid Impulse AF sitting in the closet. She used to do local business promotions, grand openings etc, and had it for taking pictures of kids sitting on Santa's lap or something like that. So the thing is in pretty good condition. It had a film pack still in it and the flash fired even which I didn't expect. The film was old though so the exposures were sticking to each other and useless. The other couple unopened packs ended up with corroded battery leads so I didn't get to test it out but it looks good mechanically. Only thing is that the Impossible film options are stupidly expensive. I might pick up a pack off amazon just to test it out at thanksgiving, but otherwise I don't know if I will use it much unless some alternative comes around or the film goes on sale.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
JHVH-1 posted:stupidly expensive welcome to film
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
If you want to shoot more reasonably priced instant film, get a vintage polaroid land camera that takes pack film. Fuji FP-100c is about $0.90/shot whereas Impossible film is around $2.75/shot as you probably already figured out. Plus, Impossible film is really finicky and you're likely to waste half the shots you take. And they look way cooler  RIP if you're in  though
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:If you want to shoot more reasonably priced instant film, get a vintage polaroid land camera that takes pack film. Fuji FP-100c is about $0.90/shot whereas Impossible film is around $2.75/shot as you probably already figured out. Plus, Impossible film is really finicky and you're likely to waste half the shots you take. The land cameras were what I was originally looking at when I first found this thread, and hoped to run into one. But hey, the camera was free and I rescued it from being sold off on eBay or something like that. I also checked out the brownie cameras my grandmother had and expressed interested in those so hopefully they don't disappear. They are pretty old, so I think she is more likely to hand those down. Kinda stupid though impossible sells a 3 pack (of 8 exposures instead of the original polaroid 10 of course) for $69.99 which essentially saves you zero dollars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Might as well raid my grandmother's photo stuff while I'm here for thanksgiving. I'm sure this is still good. (Aug 1980 expiration date). 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Did anyone go in for a Lomo'Instant Wide? I got the kit with the wide-angle and close-up lenses, but I'm not sure how to focus them. The manual with the kit said the close-up has a set focus distance of 10cm, but is that with the camera's lens itself focused as close as possible? And the part for the wide-angle lens says to set the camera to 0.5m (even though it only goes down to 0.6m) to take pictures at 0.3m with the attachment, and at infinity for "normal" photography. So at one foot I'm focused as close as possible, and anything else I rack it out to infinity? I don't know if I care for the lomo aesthetic/culture, but at least it's a more versatile camera than the Instax 300, which can't even turn off its flash.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
404notfound posted:So at one foot I'm focused as close as possible, and anything else I rack it out to infinity? Sounds like that's their suggested. Looking forward to seeing how the camera works for you!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
404notfound posted:Did anyone go in for a Lomo'Instant Wide? I got the kit with the wide-angle and close-up lenses, but I'm not sure how to focus them. The design is actually more of what I would like. The fuji's are kinda big and goofy looking. If its any decent I might look at one of those later. I went and bought some still overpriced film direct from impossible during their "black friday" sale which they extended into a cyber monday and now a holiday sale. There were some round frame packs for 50% off (discontinued I guess) and I picked up a double pack of B&W 2.0 formula just to try since I got the camera for free. They still charge 8 bucks shipping, and it shipped Friday with an deliver before date of next Tuesday. It would have been faster and cheaper to just ship it through USPS priority. The film you get on amazon isn't expired or anything, but they keep the new formula for their own site for some reason. So the test pack I got you still have to hide it in the dark for 30 minutes after you take it and all that garbage. The whole thing seems like they are taking advantage of people honestly. Like maybe it costs good money to develop these formulas, source the chemicals, improve the process etc. but why not try to bring down prices or be transparent. Plus why the hell keep selling the old formula to retailers without buyers having any idea?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 22:20
|
|