>> |
ac
!!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>166457 >Ohhh man, that is not true, I've used some pretty crappy digitals. I'm not talking about the worst digitals. Polaroids cost around $2/picture ($20 for a pack of 10 shots). So for the cost of 50 Polaroid shots (not counting the cost of the Polaroid camera), you can buy low end Canon PowerShot, which will take decent pictures. Certainly better image quality than Polaroid 600 film will give you.
>If you KNOW how to use a polaroid camera, the images come out just fine Ah, I think you're misunderstanding my argument here.
Polaroid cameras are not marketed at the people who know how to use polaroid cameras. They're marketed at people who want to take pictures and don't want to wait for 24 frames and a 1 hour photo trip to get them developed. That niche is filled a hell of a lot more cheaply with digitals.
>And its not about the quality of the image, its the point that when it comes out of that camera, you can see a memory getting developed right before your eyes and as said before, its like having a hard copy of your work. Which is why the 18,175 people in the country who want to keep polaroid around want to keep polaroid around. Do you think those 18,175 people are going to buy enough Polaroid 600 film packs to pay the salaries of everyone at the Polaroid plant? Are you still going to want to buy polaroids if it went up to $5/shot or $10/shot because the volume of purchase is just so low?
I'm sad Polaroid's going too. Polaroid photography is fun. But the writing was on the wall as soon as digital cameras hit one megapixel.
|