TIP support directed me to check the online galleries of samples taken with all the films as per this link and i can see great creativity from the users and as far as the fils there appears to be a milky white wash feel in varying degrees in all images.

if you take whatever image taken which has great contrast and color with any camera digital- sx 70 old school or film e-6 etc and open iton photoshop and then go to adjustments and choose "hue- saturation " and go way left field with the lightness control you can mimic this white fade.

I actually use the reverse when i find an image which has this milky fade to correct it nd turn it into a good exposure.

Any thoughts?

here you go

http://shop.the-impossible-project.com/allabout/colorshade/#sample_gallery

if you dont undrestand what im saying do the opposite.

save any of those posted images and then  go towards the dark side in the same filter

When viewing the online samples submitted by the users, keep in mind that they are all "scanned" images. Depending on the scanner used, the experties of the peson scanning the image (and things like auto correction settings in the scanning software), you'll see varying degrees of quality.

Personally, I've had some pretty good results.

Tom what you say is so true. that is precisely why i asked the question since ALL images have that issue regardless of who took them- scanner used or camera used.We already know Polaroid films had a different range than conventional films- with that said there is a range which falls within the charts and one which falls WAY OFF OFF OFF the charts. I look at the pictures posted and reiterate I see good results in what refers to the users effort.

If I had asked the question while Polaroid was making these films, first neither I or any one else would have asked the question since as far as I know something like this has never happened in the history of photography.

I dont expect photographers be crash test dummies for equipment or films and again with that said those of us who spent decades using films to take pictures came to expect a specific response . I do not know how images which apearance of   being fogged in part

can qualify as preety good results in what refers to the films performance. 

Here are two recent examples taken using the PX680 Gold Edition films, one taken using natural light, the other using flash. These are not foggy at all.

I am fond of all of the currently-available production films. I find that TIP's black-and-white films are crystal clear, and their color films are approaching the oriiginal Polaroid color films. However, all of TIPs films still have a Achilles' heel: they must be properly shielded from light the moment that the exposed frame is ejected. This has been well publicized and there are workarounds until Impossible can perfect the opacifiers in their films.

Whoops.... I forgot to include the link to the images: http://www.the-impossible-project.com/projects/2012inaninstant/singleview.php?id=302

I like your work

The images you present have such effect in a lesser degree.

 That was at first glance before i noticed how dark the borders are when they should be white.....

I have gone ahead and did the removal of the lightness as suggested before and then whitened the edges.

I hope you dont mind but if you do i will ask the moderator to delete it

going back to the gallery offered by TIP I notice the 680   film edges are white how can the image borders in your print be so dark and the image area be within range.what am i missing here besides  the fact you made the color warmer?

Hi again William -

First, the borders of the frame are actually gold in color (hence the film's designation 'Gold Edition'). See http://shop.the-impossible-project.com/shop/film/600/fi_600_1_px680_gold. Impossible offers gold frames or white frames for the PX680 color film, and gold, black, grey and white for its PX600 films.

BTW, I didn't make the color warmer in the photos. I have a color calibrator for my scanner, printer and monitor so that the scanned images match the original as closely as possible. However, metallic gold is difficult to approximate on my scanner, so the boarders appear to closer to "brown"

thanks for the clarification. i hope the white edges in the picture where i removed the lightness shows what im trying to say

i have been commisioned to make a series of full frame coupled parallax coupled rangefinder cameras with xenotars to use these films and want to make sure i know what im getting myself into in terms of  expectancies cause its a  big cost

May I suggest that you acquire an inexpensive Polaroid camera and a pack of Impossible's films to see for yourself? You can get all sorts of non-folding 600 models in thrift shops or on eBay, and you can obtain a pack or two of Impossible's films for trial. At most, you'd spend under $100 USD. If it's easier, you can get a camera + film directly from Impossible, starting at $80 USD, and includes one pack of PX680 First Flush film. At this price, you could add additional film packs to see results. 

http://shop.the-impossible-project.com/shop/cameras/600/ca_express_...

These cameras are the popular Polaroid OneStep Close-up models. They're not the same caliber of the folding SX-70/SLR-680 models (which are genuine SLRs and use glass optics), but at least you'll be able to see what results the film produces.

If your budget allows, you could also order one of the SLR-680 kits, which includes the high-quality SLR-680 and two packs of PX-680 film. See http://shop.the-impossible-project.com/shop/cameras/600/ca_slr_680_kit for details.

Kind regards,
Tom 

I have a collection of every such camera ever made. I need to be objective instead  of fond on this one.

 I would like to get to the bottom of the witewah effect before I make the plunge of making the cameras mostly because as you can see the issue could be solved somewhat  but requires experience and a lot of explaining to the extent that  not as many are aware of the issues you refer to and the first thing that happens is the camera gets blamed.

the best possible camera isnt impossible but would not solve the issue

 besides the lightness factor what is the opinion on uneven development?

I understand completely, William. Would you go into more detail about "uneven development"?

yes there is a subtle  uneveness in texture noticeable in periferal areas of all these images. i dont know if blotchy is the right term.

Presuming that you are referring to the image area immediately adjacent to the borders of the frame, this was common (but not consistetnly) in Polaroid's integral films, too, from time-to-time. I have photos going back to 80s & 90s that show the very same thing.

yes but in those cases it was more of a roller versus chemical issue and now it looks as if  there is a sudued  ghost image

i used to make a few 12000 24000 asa medium format emulsions for myself for more esoteric editorial portraits and which im fond of but it didnt nave concurrent issues and so i could live with 1 side effect

In the photos that I've stored away from the 80s and 90s, I can honesly say that the manifistation being discussed wasn't a roller issue. I kept my cameras' rollers clean, and I would see these types of behaviors from the same film pack, from one shot to the next. I only want to mention this contextually, and not to be argumentative.

BTW, I like the photo "Arabella". was the graininess a result of the high ASA?

yes its actually grain equivalent to 3000 asa- it wasvery hard to keep it that tight

Hi William -

I appreciate your compliments. They were too kind.

I understand - as photographers - that we all want perfect films. Me, too. I get it. I'm from the old school myself. And it's disappointing that companies like Polaroid shut down production, and now Kodak is in bankruptcy, too. You can still buy Kodachrome films here and there, but there is nowhere in the world that can process them. Little by little, analog film is going away. Fuji continues, of course, but for how much longer? There aren't any guarantees.

I'm unabashedly an Impossible fan. I even wear an Impossible tattoo (not kidding - see attachment) because even though digital photography has become the prevalent medium today, Impossible had the wherewithall to invest in preserving instant films with very little money, no guarantees, and in the face of obverse extinction. And in my personal experience over the past two years, each new Impossible film release has improved upon its predecessors.

As an early adopter, I'm an Impossible Pioneer (Land level), which gives me limited access to new films being developed. And in recent days, we Pioneers have been offered some new beta film stock.

I'd like to extend an offer: I will send you two packs of "pioneer-exclusive" films for your enjoyment: one is the newest beta release of their PX-70 color film, and the other is their newest beta of their PX-100 film. I offer these to you at no charge. I ask only for you to reimburse the shipping charges, because I don't know where you live. I live in the USA, but I have no way of knowing where you call home. In return, I ask you to offer your honest feedback here. Whether you like the films, or not.

I make this offer because I'd like you to see the progress that Impossible is making. This goes back to my earliest comments in this forum, if you'd like to review them from previous discussions. If you accept my offer and try-out these latest beta films (my gift to you), I think that you'll like what you see. But you' need to do so following the recommendations that accompany the test films, including shielding them from light and letting them develop in the rcommended temperatures.

If this is a fair-minded offer to you, then please send me your contact information privately at tbntx@yahoo.com.

I hope that you don't see this as a "show-down" in Dodge City or anything like that. I just really want you to see for yourself the strides that Impossible is making. Fair enough?

Kindest regards,
Tom

---

DISCLAIMER: I am not an employee of The Impossible Project, I receive no compensation, and I have no vested interest. I only want to see instant films return for the enjoyment of those of us who appreciate instant analog photography.

thanks= im really backlogged over here -will try to reply tommorow

You bring up some valid examples. Kodakrome died because development by manufacturer competed with e6 and all other development by independent labs AND WHICH Threatened SALES OF CHEMICALS LAB SUPPLIES ETC which was the bread and butter of the company. They had to choose- Kodak bankruptcy imminent despite the excellent film quality- the same was the case with Polaroid= bad management choices . T55 was alarmed as ready to be discontinued for the last 10 years of its production by chicken little type rumors and use dwindled accordingly. As we are speaking about integral films I take your” they left us in the lurch" objection and reiterate that integral films continued to be produced by Fuji and perhaps of a higher quality than Polaroid ever made. I see things differently and worry that instax may have to go down despite its quality as history has a tendency to repeat itself. The strides and challenges you speak of are self imposed as I see it. "Impossible had the wherewithall to invest in preserving instant films with very little money, no guarantees, and in the face of obverse " Claimed investment I believe is 100 million as startup and I doubt that purchasing all the essentials required from Fuji or Polaroid to avoid going back to the drawing board would have cost more than a few hundred thousand. To get the gears going and the rest would have been covered by sales Both Polaroid and Fuji had/have the answers and the tech are sources to obtain standard staple of commerce supplies. A rental on a landmark store in soho may cost 30-50 g a month and over a year could cover the cost of any machine being destroyed in the past or licensing to use existing tech on integral films and or to hire those who know what they are doing. And that is one store alone I understand they have several such expenses. But as is the case with anything else sometimes people decide we should all pay attention to what " they can accomplish themselves" and so we find ourselves in a case where what wasn’t impossible for Polaroid and isn’t for Fuji is approached as if an existing challenge because it certainly makes things look interesting. If only one remembers that it was no big deal when the Polaroid was available as didn’t get commemorated daily for being available. Fuji films remained available and few know about them and sit somewhere in the ignored bin. That is what I see as relevant point number 1. The second point is that my responses sound a lot like whining yet are really uncontrollable giggles at al this silliness "As an early adopter, I'm an Impossible Pioneer (Land level), which gives me limited access to new films being developed. And in recent days, we Pioneers have been offered some new beta film stock.' I understand the value and need of improvement and have been a full time advocate for it. improvement has to be over an existing quality otherwise it is digress. I introduced my product in 2000 and the first thing that occurred was an unanimous response that the product was yielding a higher quality than any previous Polaroid camera and in ref to synergy of function it was then rated as most responsive camera in history. That may sound great to most but the fact is it was a somewhat limited accomplishment since all previous related effort was not so huge but assumed huge. It was I who had to fight a loosing battle when I explained the product needed improvement and introduced a new one every year because better than expected is assumed an bragged present or expected. Any rise in quality from what was made previously may merit an effort whether it is recognized or not but in this case I feel the effort is the core of the Propaganda and the effort as I see it was not required other than a personal challenge - or as a means to earn recognition. When I see someone else never ceased to make instant films I say the propaganda of integral film no longer available is false. When I see someone else never ceased to make instant films I say the propaganda of integral film requiring improvement before availability is silly. I seriously recommend they don’t follow the silly road again in reference to 8x10 and hire the right crew as 20x 24 knows the tech and Fuji knows the tech as the product show. in closing I add that we find ourselves at a crossroads where the social aspect of things an internet presence seems to be more important than what is being discussed. 2 people like this- 0 people like this - 2 people like this?? is that what it has come down to. who cares!!! I have and have always had the best of friends and a lifetime at the summit of the profession and my film was what it was supposed to be. not a photographers character or being difficult because im not affected by the laughing gas here. - it is funny and laughable but that is it Business requirement implied accepted universally is that you first market a product with preexisting viable tech until your research is ready and free of flaws If you wish to have a satellite research project by which knowing participants are willing to test prototypes they are informed work less than what is currently available in the market that is fine. A warning inside the package as to how to minimize flaws isn’t what you can call " widely publicized" . My camera require you remove the lens front element for closing with some custom lenses this is done because it yields better results at picture taking time than any other choice but the buyer has the right to be informed beforehand. I’m required by law to disclose that publicly and have since day 1 and then I go further when I discuss that with each customer before accepting payment. I find myself in a similar situation when my camera rated and accepted as best in history and which has no flaws even as claimed by my opponents has to take second place in exposure to other products because there is a rhetoric of inventiveness which isn’t when I patented it 10 years ago and or because fanatics very similar to this gets in the way of reason. In short if there is a frustration it isn’t with the quality of the films but with what I see as being marketed a la side show an expedition into the integral films experience as if it were a ride in Disneyland as cctv mind play when what is claimed needs discovery - saviourship or improvement has been available in stores all along TIP published an offer 5 years ago or so claiming to introduce the first 4x5 Polaroid camera. that was 6 years after my camera and the camera offered was a knock off from mine. If one feels anyone can make an honest mistake you take a different position when there is no public retraction ever made just more and more snobbish entitlement. I repeat that the images offered by the manufacturers website as a collection made out of a total count is representative and fair game. Me testing films is not because as overqualified I would find myself obligated to do whatever is required to bridge the gap. as any pro photographer tends to. I appreciate the gesture but haven’t the time to deal with that plus I prefer to see a lot of work by others as to gauge the range /i will keep looking at the new work all best w