'Just got a new SLR670x Ming Edition that I took on a trip to Adelaide. Here are some of the results

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'Also have a polaroid now that I like to play with old photos on

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'planned to buy an instax but the results look so much worse than polaroid';

'>>4252162
If you are going to spend the money the SLR670 model are great because they have the Time Machine that you can adjust the shutter speed. With a light meter (or even a phone app) and a grey card you can nail the exposure every time. Fixed aperture of f8 and the Ming model can be flash synced to studio lights. I love it so far. I've had cheap instax and polaroids and you blow so much wasted film with them. And the film isn't cheap and if you are dependent on the auto settings you are lucky if half are useable and 1 in 5 perfect. With the manual one I have a pretty good success rate, even though I am still learning the films capabilities and weaknesses..';

'>>4252193
I heard the older OneStep 2 performs much better than the Now. Will get one for 70$';

'I'm curious if it would be possible to get a similar look on a typical digital camera through editing? I'm guessing you'd have to cut off the blacks and whites with an S curve or something.';

'>>4252417
The short range of the film could be done in photoshop but that won't give you the look. It is as much about the lens and the physicality and peculiarities of the film. Just get a Polaroid Lab and print the photos off your phone.';

'Pretty coold photos anon. It would seem like the Polaroid Gods have forsaken me as I have never been able to get a decent shot.';

'>>4252028
infectious joy, wonderfully done op.';

'>>4252500
OP here. Polaroid has a very limited range of stops so you need to get the exposure right. I use a hand held light meter and a grey card as the polaroid I have has an attachment that allows you to set the shutter speed. If you are a poorfag then just get a phone app which is the next best thing. A kind of modified zone system with a lot less zones to work with. But for polaroids cameras without shutter speed control it has always been shot and pray for me.';

'>>4252673
Yeah, I admit I've never shot "real" instant cameras. All I got is a box Polaroid camera and an Instax 500AF. The price on the SLRs, even the cheaper ones like the SX-70 seem pretty steep. Was the switch to them noticeable? I might be tempted to try one of the Mint ones.';

'>>4252689
They are pricey but you end up saving so much more on film by eliminating all the wasted shots that auto models give you. It is taking me a while to get used to the particularities of the film but I would say most shots are very usable. You just don't get that consistency with autos and waste shit loads of expensive film. So I'd just save up for the shutter speed capability models with what Mint calls "time machine" that clips in a the top where the flash goes. Only downside is you can't use the flash with the time machine unfortunately. The time machine does however have a sych cable port to link with studio flash but I haven't had a chance to try out yet.';

'Some good. Some not so good. Your choice of the red star as a trademark was the most interesting thing I took from this thread. I'm certain you will someday have a polaroid show in a small gallery someday and you may even be able to sell a coffeetable book to family and friends. All in all, keep it up, OP, and best of luck.';

'Has anyone tried any of the new Mamiya 120 polaroid and instax backs? I see Zinstax and Analog Studio make them for instax and polaroid respectively.';

'>>4252692
How do you think the Mint cameras compare to the new I-2?';

'>>4253053
Haven't tried the l-2 or really looked into yet. But I sure it is good. The lens system looks good, surely better that the soft Mint ones. But I guess they will be different cameras for different looks. I like that the mint still has a soulful old school polaroid look while still being able 5to control the exposure stutter speed manually. I decided to pull the trigger on the Zintax back for my RZ67 120 film camera instead for when I want sharp clear polaroids without the dreamy affect of the softer lenses.';

'I started on a Polaroid, got the stranger things edition one step 2 when it came out.. but I'm a broke so it became harder to justify the cost and I ended up getting into 35mm. Didn't have the budget to practice them as an art form for very long.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4253453
That being said, it's still fun to bust out every once in awhile.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4253454

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4253455
Thanksgiving at Playa De Carmen in Mexico

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4253456

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4253457

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4253455
I just picked up a pack of round exposures a while ago. Have been saving it for a special occasion because it was really hard to get for me. Look Good.';

'>>4253461
Got to love the spooky ghostly images polaroid can give.';

'>>4253960
I think this was right during the buyout with the new chemistry. Some of these came out yellowish and then I have actual black and white ones but they are both the I type b&w. I do love it though,.';

'>>4253628
Yea they were pretty interesting. I have a few left I'll probably try and save for more portraiture style. I took it with me for the Keh beers and camera meetup in ATL and popped a few off as I was walking about town.';

'How does everyone digitize their polaroids? I've tried the Google PhotoScan App and its results are muddled, probably because of my Pixel 4. I like OP's way of just putting it on some white backdrop and taking a picture of the whole thing. I'd love to get some high quality scans though, I got some great polaroids from an Afroman concert from earlier this year.';

'>>4254965
I'm still working it out using a good flatbed. Still getting Newton rings slightly though';

'>>4254475
Temperature can also really affect the development of the film. Cold film gives really ghostly images full of anomalies. Warm to hot starts to really get weird color casts and such.';

'I really want to try the yellow duochrome film. It would be nice to some pics of buildings with it.';

'>>4252020
>>4252021
Glenelg
>>4252023
Hindley St
>>4252025
King William St
>>4252029
Zoo
>>4252031
Adelaide Airport

Did you enjoy your trip?';

'>>4256649
Was my first time in Adelaide and I absolutely loved it. A nice sized city that has heaps of green space without being too big. Lots of good food and art. Could see myself living there one day but will have to check it out in winter as everyone says it is harsh.';

'>>4257257
I love Adelaide. I have lived here my whole life, but moving to Canberra next year for a job. The parklands are so good, and it has one of the most active art scenes in Aus. There are more live music shows here on any given day than any other city in Aus (according to my music producer dad, at least). I've never thought that the winters are that harsh. Especially when compared to Melbs, Hobart or Canberra. I have spent a fair amount of time in each of those cities over the years btw';

'>>4257379
I come off as a cock in this post. All I mean to say is that Adelaide is a good place to live.
FWIW:
https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/travel/why-adelaide-might-secretly-be-australias-coolest-city-according-to-insiders-bc18a459';

'>>4257380
kicks Brisbane's ass';

'Some shots with the duochrome yellow

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'Annoyed that that weird white splotch ruined the shot

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4252019
I always hated polaroids for being obnoxiously lo-fi, but this image makes me appreciate that they kind of nicely frame the image in that white border and in B&W, iI don't hate it. I wonder if they make 120 film, that'd be interdasting';

'>>4261083
>>4261085
>>4261088
Nice, I will definitely pick some of that stuff up to play with.';

'>>4261280
What do you mean by 120 film? Do you mean polaroid backs for 120 cameras? Because if you do then you are in luck because they make polaroid backs that shoot Instax film. I am currently on the waiting list for a Zinstax back for my Rz67 Pro ii.';

'Testing a bit of 600 film.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'Heres a picture I took with i-type B&W I swapped into a 600 cartridge to use in my polaroid one step close up. yes I know they make B&W 600 film but they don't sell that shit at my walmart and I don't want to waste the batteries in the 600 cartridges. also cheaper.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'Not sure if you want the thread to be strictly polaroid but I also have some shots with instax wide film taken on a MiNT RF70

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'Last shot in the cartridge

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4262112
instax is more than welcome';

'>>4252019
simple but great looking on that film
>>4252028
I love this picture
>>4262145
amazing shot. This is my favorite polariod film by far. I tried the green and blue and the yellow is by far the best. You've inspired me to scan all my polaroids tomorrow.';

'>>4262613
Duochrome green was so bad. Everything got blown out.';

'>>4253053
Avoid ANYTHING mint related. Dodgy Chinese crap.';

'Which instant camera would you recommend? I would really love to get a SX-70, but they're expensive and €20+ for 8 exposures is insane.';

'>>4263269
I'm getting an sq6 soon so I'll let you know how that goes';

'back from a day of testing more on the RF70

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'scanner refuses to center this one

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'I took two of this piano but neither came out like I wanted

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'Also took a detour through the backrooms

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'I could post more shitty test shots I took but they are mostly testing exposure times and focus steps as I get used to this camera. if anyone is curious, most of the sharper ones are shot at f/22 ranged to infinity and the close ones are f/5.6 at 0.75m. haven't tried any other manual settings but the RF70 has steps 22, 16, 11, 8, 6.7, and 5.6 with a 93mm lens and a range of 0.75 to infinity. If anyone has any tips, I have plenty of film to try them out';

'>>4263380
>>4263379
rip sears';

'>>4263364
>>4262112
she's so beautiful, i hope she becomes internet famous thanks to us lmfao. She's so photogenic when she wants to be lmao';

'do polaroid have infinite resolution?';

'Instax or Polaroid? INSTAX OR POLAROID?
Regular or small?
Sq6 or Now Gen.2? Mini 90 or Go?';

'Hello, i'm not a professional at all. I actually know nothing about photography but I got a couple polaroid cameras after losing all my photos on my cell phone. I'm gonna post some of those pics.';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'most of these polaroids suck';

'undefined';

'these next few are from the mini polaroid';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'>>4264153
If you can only get one get a regular Polaroid. Polaroid Go has a lot more shots that don’t come out how you wanted or fail completely. The camera isn’t as good with light or dark. It has to be perfect conditions and isn’t as good at taking pictures of things further away.
However, Polaroid go is extremely small and that’s where it really shines. It can fit in a pocket or clip to your belt loop. It can always be with you which is why I have both.';

'>>4264614
For me, Polarioids are about capturing tangible memories instead of trying to do perfect photography. Nothing about them are perfect or even predictable. The viewfinder is off, the film isn’t perfect, the lighting can come out different than what you expect and even the way it develops can change the picture dramatically. There’s pretty much no way you can make it come out perfect or exactly like you want even if you try to line everything up correctly and have all the correct settings. That’s the fun in having them. Plus I’ve found that there are times where having a Polaroid camera is more accepted and less awkward that having a digital camera. I have a digital camera for photography and when I want to be creative or try hard. I have a Polaroid for fun and everything else.';

'>>4264153
instax has always been the superior film in a technical sense, even before polaroid went bankrupt and got reverse engineered
I wish there were more third party instax cameras less tailored for tween girls
I created this contraption in an effort to put a good lens on instax mini but was disappointed with the results. Even with a good lens the film itself is soft. You just need more film to get a sharp picture. One day I'll do something similar with wide.
In summary, instax wide is the correct answer.';

'>>4264752
I agree with the fact that the regular install film can be sharper but black and white Polaroid is a lot better in my opinion
>>4264153
If you’re looking for an instant camera just for photography you might want to consider Fuji film. It is cheaper. However the range of film types you can have with Polaroid is far superior. You can get metallic framed films, colored frames, duochrome colors, retinex frames, black frames etc… and with any of the I type cameras you can use little film or any of the 600 films. Polarioid also has a much larger selection of cameras as well
With fujifilm you get a choice between 3 boring looking cameras and white bordered film either color or black and white
I have wide fujifilm camera and I tend to use it a lot less';

'In the end I made 1:1 paper templates of all four film formats and I instinctively hated instax mini, so that was out; also instax cameras are hideous. Since Polaroid has a sale going on, I decided to gift a Go: it's extremely portable and that's what matters, I'll see how it goes and If I like instant photography I might get myself an old foldable Polaroid camera.';

'My favorite shot, captured on an SLR680

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4265339
this is really cool. I want to take my camera to neat places like this. its one thing to have a digital image of a place but having a picture you took yourself on film of a cool place like this just really activates the neurons. good snap, good job';

'So what would you guys recommend ?
the sx-70 costs 200€ allready. i think i will consider an instax...
which instax would you recommend ?';

'Reporting on the Polaroid Go Gen.2, my first instant camera. I didn't have high expectations, but for what it is, and for the use I want to make out of it, it's good enough. If the light is right and you use it well (there's a bit of learning curve) it makes acceptable pictures with more detail than I was expecting, although to be fair I wasn't expecting much; exposure seems about right. It was weird to see how detail and contrast improve as the days pass, but then again Polaroid says to not archive the pictures before a month. Overall pictures are lo-fi and that leans in the nostalgic feel I want to bring with them.
Pictures are small, sure, but they come out of an incredibly small and cute camera. The fact it's so unobtrusive means it can be a EDC camera, which is what sold it to me, and the fact it's cute means I don't want to gouge my eyes out like I would if I bought a Instax: I'm astonished by the design, it's brilliant really, I love it.
Tomorrow I'll try shooting a whole pack, maybe experiment with the various features (focus and exposure locking, double exposure, self timer) I'll report back with the results.';

'>>4253026
Not necessarily zinstax but I've shot a modified polaroid roll film camera with instax back and whilst the instax back is a pretty decent alternative to repurposing these roll film types (beats not having any film at all) and definitely better than shooting from those cheap instax camera, I don't see the need of using an expensive medium format camera with instax

You've already spent a small fortune on Hasselblad/Mamiya/Kowa, just use an actual film they're relatively inexpensive, plenty of them around, minimal waste and you could get a much better looking picture

So there, Instax hack. Great for those old camera with films that were no longer available, pointless for everything else';

'>>4268197
>I'll report back with the results.
Excuse the poor scanning apparatus (torch and smartphone), but that's the best I can do for now.
1/2

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4269740
2/2

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'Just got my frankinstax. Build feels solid, functions super well. Just waiting on more film to come in.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4269958
Test shot was pretty sharp. Excited to get more film.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4269958
Always wanted one but price is steep and I don't know how much better it is than an SX-70';

'>>4262952
Really? That's a bummer. You have one?';

'>>4270255
I have the mint slr670x ming edition and love it';

'>>4270254
I mean you get the opportunity to use multiple lenses on it, so there’s that. I’d say you have more control too.';

'>>4252019
These are all terrible because the new Sony A9x7r3 shoots at 9k and 400fps and';

'I got a lomoinstant wide to try to take some instant photography and I'm pretty sure I'm total shit at this. Most of my pics were either over exposed or underexposed and I rarely had my subject in correct focus. What should I be trying to do? Instax wide is 800 iso, my camera shutter speed ranges from auto 82-1/250s prayers, 1/30 and bulb. exposure compensation options are +1, 0 and -1. Zone focus settings are .6m, 1-2m and inf.';

'Got my hands on a Sprit 600 as my first polaroid and I'm pretty satisfied with some of my shots, just need to get more familiar with the exposure slider and working around the fixed focus. I hear there're 600 models with autofocus, so I might keep my eyes open for one of those.';

'>>4269958
>frankinstax/zinstax
really want something like this for my RZ, but fuck that price
plus there's the 'fuji factor' where they just nuke product lines without warning';

'Want to try instant photography.

How is Instax Mini 90?

How is the new polaraoid go gen 2? I hear gen 1 was not very good

Which would be a better device?';

'>>4272796
>How is the new polaraoid go gen 2?
See >>4268197 >>4269740 >>4269741
Instax mini film is cheaper and bigger than Go film (same width, instax mini is taller with a 2:3 aspect ratio), and from what I've read it's also way more consistent, accurate, and develops way faster. That being said, Instax cameras are bad design wise, both from an esthetic and functional perspective, while the Go is a small miracle. The two devices look like they come from different eras, with the Go being the modern one.
Personally, for a number of reasons, I like the lo-fi randomness of Polaroid and hate Instax vertical aspect ratio, plus the differences between cameras solidified my choice.

It all come down to your requirements: what do you want out of this experience?';

'>>4270255
Had the rf70..barely lasted a year (rangefinder held by feeble spring) bad viewfinder,shit lens,terrible rangefinder..only good thing is the batteries last an age and the winder feature. It's a white elephant.
There's a reason why yoochoobers only done a "review" and never used it again.';

'>>4264580
figment!';

'Noticed that the B+W polaroids change color to a sepia after a couple of weeks. When do the colors stabilize?';

'A few new polaroids from new years

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'So I'm about to go on a fairly scenic holiday and thought I would pick up an instant camera as something extra to use (or for my partner to use) and have pinned it down to wanting to use Instax square film. Polaroid Go and Instax Mini are too small, and Instax wide seems great but all the cameras that use it are massive. I also have access to far-below-retail pricing on Instax Square film while Polaroid seems pretty expensive.

Looking into it, it seems like I missed the boat on the SQ6, which is the only Square camera that doesn't skip on what I consider to be fairly obvious essential features. Is there any other comparable option? I've eliminated the SQ1 and SQ40 (basically the same camera) and looking at Lomo, the Diana and Square glass just seem so fiddly and toyish that I feel like I'll miss more often than not when I just want to take an easy photo.

Annoyingly, the second hand market for the SQ6 seems to reflect that everyone else realised this too and they seem to sell for only just-below retail was. Suggestions?';

'>>4274409
As far as I know unless you want to shell out $600 for a nons sL660 unfortunately the SQ6 is the better camera';

'>>4252019
>>4252023
>>4252031
>>4252037
>>4252045
>>4252046
These are very nice
>>4252020
>>4252021
>>4252025
>>4252029
These have composition/horizon issues';

'>>4274409
lomo square';

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'undefined';

'A couple more Polaroid Go exposures. I was expecting higher shutter speed, since it was a well lit day, but I'm not too dissatisfied with the result.';

'>>4282614
They're ok';

'>>4268197
nice
might get one next time im by walmart
havnt had a polaroid since i was a kid

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'friends, i just missed out on this baby for $20 bucks today, and i'm seething. I messaged the guy, he agreed to let me come buy it after work. then a few hours later i get "sorry, someone came to pick it up its gone". does a man's word mean nothing anymore? I swear 2g tbqhwy.';

'>>4252019
forgive me
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsGOQP-B0gU';

'>>4289212
>4120 polaroids
>515 packs
>71.99€ for a 5 pack bundle
>7414.97€ in polaroids';

'>>4289212
Money to burn clearly.';

'>>4271306
Lomoinstant wide has all kinds of exposure issues. It's a shit camera. Squares a bit more reliable.';

'>>4289060
It's a fag eat fag world out there';

'>>4289060
Had a similar thing happen to me back in 2014-2015 and learned my lesson.';

'>>4289239
It's just the cost of doing business: considering it got a video out of it, which will generate a lot more revenue, you can see those money as invested rather than burned. Still, a huge sum nonetheless.';

'>>4289235
>>4289239
I mean he sold some of his pics of some dumb bitch in front of neon lights for 10K and more ...
honestly, it's funny af. some guy told him at some point that his photos suck ass and he had to change his approach. hardly any worthwhile stuff came out and if an idea was good, it came from someone in his team. MTGT4';

'where'd you get the star stamp looks cute :3';

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'posting a couple i took that i had on my computer. they're not great but whole lot of great memories behind them for me :)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4293073

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4293074
also at the bottom of my pics i always get that weird blue looking shit. maybe something wrong with my cam? i got it at a thrift store

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4293076
opacification failure
https://support.polaroid.com/hc/en-us/articles/115012532748-Opacification-failure-blue-marks';

'>>4293180
They loooove blaming the rollers for the shortcomings of their shit chemistry and QC. Dirty rollers lmao give me a break';

'>>4293199
To be fair, even the original manuals recommend wiping down the rollers every now and then. Though they do tend to pin faults on the cameras rather than the film itself, still annoyed they stopped producing Spectra film and blamed jamming issues with the reproduction films on the cameras (even though the issue was actually because of battery voltages on the cartridges).';

'>>4293202
>they stopped producing Spectra
Huh, I always thought that was because their shots were a bit thicker than the originals and the camera couldn't handle them for some reason';

'>>4293203
That could've been it, though I've heard a couple users who actually had the film saying it was a voltage thing, it's pretty muddy since Spectras seemed to be a bit more niche within the instant film niche so I couldn't find much info about the technical stuff.
Though I've heard you can run modern 600 film through them with modifications to the battery connectors or film 'adaptors' you stick in alongside it, might see if I can get my hands on one to try it out at some point.';

'How do you protect ur film from the sun?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'undefined';

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'some polaroid etchings i scanned for my aunt

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'want a polaroid but is instax just cheaper and better?';

'>>4293588
>>4293589
>>4293590
>>4293591
These are extremely cool, how were they made?
>>4294738
Short answer: yes. Long answer: depends. Polaroid film is way more inconsistent (which might be acceptable or desirable if you're into it) and significantly more expensive, but it also has more area than instax square format; polaroid go film however is smaller as it has the same width as Instax mini, but 1:1 instead of 2:3. Polaroid cameras are all around better product than Instax, which has been re-releasing the same identical camera in a different shell for more than a decade now, recently removing features. It all comes down to what you want, what you need, and what you value.

A note of caution: Polaroid spins its emulsion being inferior reverse engineered lost tech by valuing the imperfection of the end result, which truth be told I willfully bought into it as I think that if I wanted a perfect snapshit I could just use a smartphone and I'm happy with this choice, but I'm not expecting everyone to do the same, so beware of the marketing bullshit.';

'>>4294748
thanks for the info, fren
i just like the idea of having an physical photo instantly. i played with a polaroid years ago so that was my first thought but checking prices per shot of film the instax seemed to be more affordable and as you mentioned i also heard the instax film is more consistant.
might end up getting both anyway.
thoughts on the mini/go sizes? are they fun or too small?';

'>>4294769
>thoughts on the mini/go sizes?
I wrote extensively about the Go here: >>4272893
The tl;dr is that the Go is an interesting tradeoff between film size and camera size, with cost as a benefit (compared to i-type), while Instax Mini is more of a value proposition than a practical one due to the camera and the film consistency. The film size is not completely useless, once you get the hang of it you can make very pretty pictures with enough detail to call yourself satisfied. I've already posted all the Go shots I could ITT, as all the rest are personal.
Another note of caution: Polaroid development time is long. You'll have to keep the picture in the dark for the first 15 minutes, but then it will continue to slowly develop for over a month which is why you shouldn't store them (basically keep them exposed to air) during this time. It's a weird feeling to look at the same picture a few week later and see it improved, more detailed and with more contrast.

The quick and cheap way to judge is to print (or draw) 1:1 scale of the various instant formats, cut them, and hold them in your hand.';

'>>4294932
thanks again
maybe ill have some shots to share before long';

'>>4293474
Most Polaroid camera's tend to have a film shield that protects the exposed film from light for the first couple moments after being ejected. After that putting it in a pocket or face down on a desk is a decent way to guard it from sunlight. Not sure about Instax cameras though';

'undefined';

'>>4299249
Isn't instax not even film? I thought it was a digital camera with a zinc printer attached';

'>>4299249
Also called a frog tongue, easy to buy and really important to shield those first moments of exposure';

'>>4299404
It still uses instant film I believe, just a different chemical formula that forms images much faster, and probably isn't as sensitive to light as Polaroid's';

'Finally got around to buying a pack of film, looks like the 636 someone gave me a few years back still works fine (except the close-up lens is stuck, nothing of value lost there)';

'>>4299527
It’s iso800 it’s more sensitive than any Polaroid, you sped';

'>>4300168
Really? Any polaroid?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4300276
Well if we’re posting old out of production expired shit then anything goes and there’s no point. Good luck getting 3000 out of that ancient stuff kek';

'Does anybody here have any thing to say about the Instax EVO? I’ve considered getting it because it doubles as a photo printer and I can see the photo and change filters without wasting film.';