What is Digg?161 Comments
- MrBabyMan, on 02/09/2008, -5/+172"What will Andre 3000 shake it like now? What, America?" --- NYT comment
- borez, on 02/09/2008, -1/+79Polaroid should make a Digital camera with a printer in the front.
- xtmno3, on 02/09/2008, -0/+78Its a sad day, the death of an icon.
- inactive, on 02/09/2008, -2/+71Umm...I've actually used polaroid instant film quite a lot for large-format test shots (the kind of cameras that have a drape that you stand under)...in fact there's nothing else that works for test shooting a scene in large format, since no one is going to make digital sensors that big for another 30 years. There are repercussions beyond "nostalgia buffs", and I hope they at least license out their patents so that other companies can fill the niche.
- DaneArden, on 02/09/2008, -0/+63I think you are missing the historical cultural significance of the Polaroid instamatic camera. For a lot of us, this was our first chance to get women to pose naked since you didn't have to take it in and let other people see the negatives "this is just for us. No one else will ever see it."
- Pleased2CU, on 02/09/2008, -1/+50I know someone who was in charge of a party at a mall for the last Harry Potter Book. She got a Polaroid camera and took photos of the kids. When the picture was spit out - she told them to hold tight to the paper and by "magic" their photo would appear. Because these kids had not been exposed to this discarded technology - they were simply amazed to see their faces slowly appear. Many believed it was truly magic.
- patrickchee, on 02/09/2008, -5/+51a sad day...lets hope someone else will pick up the technology.
- sdubois92, on 02/09/2008, -5/+45Shake it like the baby you never wanted, but she didn't want to get an abortion so you just went along with it and now you totally regret not pushing her down the stairs that time when she was being super bitchy.
- borez, on 02/09/2008, -0/+35In the future: man will run out of exclamation marks, due to overuse in the past.
- TheLoneWolf071, on 02/09/2008, -0/+33I love these cameras, it's a shame they have to go. Though I will say that their cameras and film were a tab expensive, which is why a lot of people tended to steer clear.
- mrjohnnycake, on 02/09/2008, -0/+30Shake it like a compact flash card.
- MtheoryX, on 02/09/2008, -0/+30Guy Pierce's character in "Momento" is gonna be screwed for sure.
- skyfire1, on 02/09/2008, -2/+31That made me die a little inside.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/09/2008, -2/+28Your kids won't ever know what a Polaroid was. And they wont care!
- akatherder, on 02/09/2008, -3/+28I haven't seen an amateur porn polaroid in a while. Obviously this is obsolete technology. The porn has spoken.
- jonmac, on 02/09/2008, -0/+21About half of my work these days is digital and the other half is polaroids - whether it be emulsion transfers, double exposures, or just taking advantage of the very distinct colour and texture of a polaroid. I know I'm not the only person who values these cameras for their present day artistic value, or the only person who's sincerely hoping someone will pick up their film production assets.
I guess I need to start saving up a 'polaroid stockpile' fund. I thought the prices were terrible now at $1.00 - 1.50 per photo! - Dweller99, on 02/09/2008, -0/+16Polaroid still has a pretty large following in photography circles. Unfortunately with Digital taking over its a percentage of a percentage of photographers that still use film.
- Adsmi, on 02/09/2008, -2/+16They should have followed music industry and made digital photography illegal and claim it is stealing their film.
- BossKey, on 02/09/2008, -0/+13Shake it like a wet inkjet print...
- expatcatalyst, on 02/09/2008, -0/+12My 16 year old, just discovered how cool these were. Better buy them now, along with a supply of film, if you want one again as the price will be rising quick!
- jonjo, on 02/09/2008, -3/+15***** I just lost my jaw
- Intercon, on 02/09/2008, -0/+11Actually, there are many photographers in fashion and advertising that continue to shoot on film. Polaroids are used to check positioning, focus, and lighting while the final images are captured on film; thus polaroids are an integal part of the process. Strangely enough, most of theese images are converted to digital in the retouching and/or printing processes, though not all. My guess is someone will step in to fill this niche market. Though who knows, Irving Penn won't be around forever...
- borez, on 02/09/2008, -4/+14Shake it like a D350!
- drgmdp, on 02/09/2008, -0/+10i know about at least one guy who will miss it (and i'll miss what he did with it)
http://flickr.com/photos/notraces/tags/polaroid/ - cristianl, on 02/09/2008, -0/+10There goes another part of History.
- thewebinfront, on 02/09/2008, -0/+9pics or it didn't happen
- calon9, on 02/09/2008, -0/+9This is a serious issue[exclamation point] People, join me in conservation efforts of the exclamation point. Do not overuse them[exclamation point] Please think of our children[exclamation point][exclamation point][exclamation point][exclamation point]
- sjbdallas, on 02/09/2008, -0/+9My kids don't know what a vinyl album or cassette tape is either. Polaroids are just one of many techno wonders my kids will never know about.
- Vicille, on 02/09/2008, -1/+10What will hipsters capture their memories with now?
- scabbers, on 02/09/2008, -2/+11Are you from the future??????!!!!!!!!!!!
- lazworld, on 02/09/2008, -1/+9If a Polaroid is no longer relevant, whats next, traditional media?
- inactive, on 02/09/2008, -2/+10Pro photographers use it every day. Digital doesn't do what film does. If you need to see what your lighting is doing to your film while on set, the Polaroid process is the only way to do it.
- inthe80s, on 02/09/2008, -1/+8Polaroid invented the digital camera. They developed the technology that is replacing the instant film. They just weren't able to capitalize on it. Not everything in life is that clear cut.
- camiloteram, on 02/09/2008, -1/+8What will indie girls do now?
- elizabethb221, on 02/09/2008, -0/+7This makes me want to buy a Polaroid camera really bad.
Don't know what you got til it's gone and such. - Tibin05, on 02/09/2008, -0/+6Excerpt...
"As it seeks to gain a foothold in digital photography this year, Polaroid plans to sell an 8-ounce photo printer slightly bigger than a deck of cards that requires no ink and prints business card-sized pictures. It uses thermal printing technology from Zink Imaging Inc." - johnpaul191, on 02/09/2008, -0/+6there really are a lot of people that still prefer the sort of standard polaroids. obviously not enough to keep the business afloat though. offhand i think those are about $1 a shot these days? Insane compared to a digital camera and the ability to only print pictures you want.
anyway, i know people use them on film sets for quick references to wardrobes for consistency. they use digital cameras to take tons of pictures of people and locations, but the polaroids are quick and durable and don't require batteries. they work well if you may be in the rain or something, and a lot more rugged (and smaller) than a digital picture frame.
In reality, i could not tell you the last time i used my polaroid camera. i guess i use my iZone as a novelty, but i bought cases of expired film on ebay for almost nothing (and store it in the refrigerator). those things are for fun anyway, so any age issues are an added surprise. - inactive, on 02/09/2008, -0/+6Someone will have to pick up the technology. The Film industry (art department,) still relies heavily on the polaroid for continuity photos. Digital cameras in the field may be cheaper, but they aren't as good because you can only view them one at a time on the view screen. We keep them on a large ring with notes scrawled on the bottom white tab section. The film is really expensive though, you guard your stash on set like it's made of gold.
- inactive, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5Polaroid Type 55 film for large format photography will be sorely missed. When you peeled it apart you had the instant print and you also got a negative that you could use to make enlargements later. The film was a lot like the old Kodak Pan-X emulsion and made a lovely B&W stock that allowed you to see if your exposure and composition were working, but also allowed you to head home and make nice prints later. Since the advent of home scanners that meant you could come home and scan a 4x5 negative at 2400 dpi and have a 12,000 x 9600 pixel image to edit in Photoshop. Good stuff. Gone to "progress" just like Kodachrome and Super-XX.
- inactive, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5Yes.
- JasonDJ, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5"seduce women" and "mmorpg" don't belong in the same paragraph, let alone the same domain name.
Buried. - radical2, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5The Holga
- Altanar, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5Psst, it was the link that got you dugg down.
- theutopian, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5They said that they will license the rights to manufacture the film. So, I doubt it will completely go away.
- cadmiumpaint, on 02/09/2008, -1/+6what will indie hipster "photographers" do now? i guess they'll all flock to Lomo and Holga.
- BossKey, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5The camera in the iPhone, of course.
- adooga, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5*tad
- TMacDigg, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4That's what I was thinking. It would be neat to have a digital camera with the ability to print(like on a polaroid) the pictures you choose.
- VinnieDaMac, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4RIP Polaroid Instant Film.
- jake07, on 02/09/2008, -10/+14shake it like:
A. an overjoyed hitler
B. an unemployed hipster
C. an Altoid soda mixture
D. britney's devoid little sister
sh.sh shake it. shake it like Sigmund Freud playing twister... -
Show 51 - 100 of 155 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is