On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Scott Loveless <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/22/08, Bruce Dayton <[email protected]> wrote: >> I never felt like that brand name was all that special. My >> experience over the years was that they did well with instant films, >> but the image quality was always mediocre at best. It had a use, but >> a quality brand name it was not. > > I like Karen Nakamura's definition. "A company with great products > but absolutely horrendous marketing. The opposite of Microsoft > Corporation."
I saw an exhibit last year (I think) of a bunch of Polaroids taken by Kertesz, and they were amazing. Kind of small, but amazing. I know that they found a tiny niche market among some artsy types, and of course they could be handy in a studio back in the days of film. I guess digital killed the latter use. Whatever, their use among pros was very limited and narrow at best. For the most part they were a novelty among family snapshooters (an expensive novelty at that - price of film was horrendous). I also didn't like the idea that each film packet had a little battery in it to power the camera (so you never ran out of batteries) - not very environmentally conscious. I doubt they'll be missed much. Into the trash bin of history they go! ;-) cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
