As a follow-up, I have looked up pricing for Polaroid's 600 film when it was introduced in 1981, by researching back issues of Popular Science. At introduction, the film cost was $9.95 for 10 frames.

Reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=nRN263ekdaIC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=polaroid+600+film+price+1981+popular+mechanics&source=bl&ots=yynMH9Qsn5&sig=BMpOR_WEg0e_D9_9ritmdBLYihQ&hl=en&ei=x_WmTq24JfHgsQK_g-zpDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDUQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

Using the Consumer Price Index calculator, the cost of Polaroid's 600 film would be the equivalent of $24.84 in today's money, and each frame would be $2.48 apiece. Impossible currently sells PX680 FF for $21.99 for 8 frames, which translates to $2.75 per frame.

So in the case of Impossible's PX680 FF vs. Polaroid 600 film, Impossible's films do seem to be more expensive than Polaroid's, all things being equal.

You can still find outdated Polaroid 600 films on eBay and Amazon, but expect to pay as much as $50 per pack for a pack of expired film.

Considering that Impossible projects have put in the effort to reinvent the film we all love, i think its worth the extra buck. I'd rather support a company with the passion to push forward, who knows, one day we might be buying impossible made cameras and i'm sure with development and support product prices will come down with demand.

A few years ago my family started a restaurant. Would have been pleasing for you to eat bad food and pay a huge bill just to support us? We wasted a lot of money and time just to start with the right foot. Do your tests when you are ready hit the market. Impossible sells a poor quality product that was available 40 years ago at a huge price. Or just be clear: "Our product really sucks, we are far away from the quality levels of 40 years ago. So if you're rich and have time and money to waste buy it. If you know what photography is and know what delightful images produced original Polaroid films don't buy it, you would be disappointed." Stop describing this company as they were heroes. They don't save lives, they make (crappy) photographic materials.

stop hating and go do something productive with your life...

I'm not hating. I'm just telling the truth. The impossible crap I bought costed as much as I earn for 2 days of my job and I obtained 40 pink squares. That's very frustrating. Maybe you are rich and can afford throwing away your money. I think many guys (expecially nowadays) can't do that. In addition I told that to impossible support, they asked me to see scans of the "images". I did that, emailed them and no response. This is not the behavior somebody would expect from a company of heroes who even autocelebrate itself handwriting vouchers ( :D they believe they're gods. same attitude as Apple who at least produce functional products).

Speaking for myself, I've gotten some very good results, even though Impossible has only been making film since March, 2010.

I'll also offer some commentary: The Polaroid corporation was well-established by the time that it introduced the SX-70 and integral films in 1972. They had introduced their first Polaroid cameras in 1947, and so they had a steady stream of revenue while they started to work on creating the SX-70 integral film and camera. They had years to perfect the film stock.

In contrast, Impossible has only been around for three years, it was founded by some investors. In order for Impossible to continue to produce films and improve their formulations, Impossible needs to have revenue. And until the introduction of the lastest version of PX-70 films, all of the Impossible film stocks are identified as "experimental".

It's a shame that the people who bought Polaroid were so short-sighted, and discontinued the films production. Moreover, they sold-of or destroyed nearly all of the original manufacturing equipment. So Impossilbl has to re-invent processes and equipment too

Your restaurant analysis is a good one, but unlike restaurants, (where the ingredients of the meal don't have to be re-invented from scratch, and the restaurant doens't need to design and build its own stoves, ovens and refrigerators), Impossible has had to start from square one, not only in re-inventing the formulations, but sometimes re-creating the machines that produce the films.

I understand how you feel, of course. I'd like the films to be *perfect* myself. I wish that their current PX-70 films weren't more sensitive than they are (which requires all of use to turn the exosure control wheel all the way to the dakest settings); and I wish the the PX/PZ-600 Silver Shade formulattions didn't create "killer crystals" in the emulsion. But I think that with every new formulations, Impossible gets closer to perfection. But in the absence of Impossible's efforts, the only options available are to buy out-of-date Polaroid films, (at a far higher cost, sometimes) and the results that I've had using out of date film is no better than Impossible's.

If you want, you can get Polaroid's new Z340 digital camera that has a built - ZINK printer.  $300 USD + 10-print ZINK paper pakcs @ $20 USD each. But that camera isn't analog.

Again, this is only my opinion, but I believe that Impossible is closing in on getting it right. If you like, you can wait until they have, alright?

Thanks!
TRB 

I use a lot of difference cameras and media, myself. I'm quite impressed that you  use the daguerreotype process. I'll bet that's a lot more complex than when I was processing my own films in my darkroom. That's pretty awesome.

Yes, I agree about the new instant Polaroid Z340, and I'll wager that I can produce better digial images with my Nikon. If I want digital, I use a digital camera. If I want analog, I'll use my Mamiya, my Hasselblad, my Nikon, or my iPhone (LOL).

I don't use the daguerrotype process. I did at a workshop many years ago. I wanted to say that even difficult techniques can be tamed if driven by enthusiasm. But when you use bad products enthusiasm cannot help. I'm into stand developing with extremely diluited Rodinal right now, a nice process that provide great vividness, try it yourself. It's funny that you have the time to answer to my questions and Impossible never replies to email or forum discussion. Maybe they are building a dismissed keyboard from the past to reply.

I'm not sure how often Impossible looks at these user forums. However, if you want to reach them directly, you can use the "Submit Request" link at the top of the page: http://support.the-impossible-project.com/requests/new.

Regards,

TRB

I did that. They closed the discussion and asked me for scans. Never replied.

Sebastion, I'd like to suggest that you follow up on that. Whenever I've had any support issues, they've been very responsive. It wouldn't take much time, and who knows? You might get a refund/credit or some other consideration. It wouldn't hurt.

My late Father had a great piece of advice: It's always "no" if you don't ask in the first place.

I'd like to encourage you to go back to Impossible Support.

Sebastiano, in an earlier email, you wrote: "And they want me to pay 12€ for a piece of plastic to shade films. They should include one for free in every pack."

In a manner of speaking, Impossible does include a means of shielding the films, if you have a folding model like the SX-70 or the SLR-680.

Following Patrick's reply about making sure that the films are shielded immediately, have you seen this video that Impossible posted last October?

http://blog.the-impossible-project.com/how-to-shield-your-film-usin...

For that matter, I also posted an alternate method, using foil "snack" bags:

http://support.the-impossible-project.com/entries/473813-using-foil...

I must admit, though, that using the PX Shade is my favorite approach, but there other ways of shielding the film. I hope that one of these methods will help result in better images.

Regards,
TRB 

Hi all, here's my two cents about Impossible's situation:

When Polaroid was developing their first instant film system (roll film) they had an existing revenue stream from various optical products like their polarizing films, sunglasses etc. plus they had made a considerable amount of $$ on military contracts during WWII though that had dried up & they really needed the instant photography system to succeed in order to continue as a company.

Once the roll film system was a success they had that revenue to develop pack film and then pack film revenue to develop integral film (SX-70).  So each time they were able to introduce a mostly perfected system for sale to the public and pay for the R & D with revenue from existing, mature products.

Unfortunately, the failure to make the transition from analog to digital is, I guess, why we're here, and a topic for another discussion.

So Impossible is in the unenviable position of practically having to reinvent the integral film system from scratch but with no funds to do so except from whatever investors they have (I know nothing about this myself but assume it's not a lot, correct me if I'm wrong, please) and the money they make from selling the film they are able to produce.

It seems they are performing a balancing act of having to sell something (however imperfect) to stay in business long enough to perfect their product but not sell something so imperfect that no one buys it and they go out of business.

My impression is that we who buy their products are their partners/investors in this attempt to get instant film back,  I'm willing to buy a few packs now and then to help keep things going, and I understand that it's not going to be inexpensive or anywhere near perfect, better to think of the imperfections as a challenge to create something interesting within its current limitations.

Given all that I can definitely understand the frustration if I were to spend a considerable sum of money and have NONE of the pictures come out, Impossible's part of the bargain, besides doing their best to continue improving the product is to work with customers to fix things when they go wrong.

Just my opinion...

Well said Mark. I follow your thinking exactly. And I appreciate Patrick's additional commentary.

Sebastiano, I understand your frustration. But as Mark mentioned, it's a tough balancing act for Impossible. I can only suggest that you try some of the future releases that lay ahead.