On the passing of Polaroid
This is truly sad:
I’m really surprised that there isn’t enough of a niche market to continue producing the film on a small scale for artists and hobbyists alike. I’m glad to hear they’re at least open to licensing or selling the technology to make the film.
It’s a little funny that the Washington Post article lays the blame on Flickr, though.
The artsy, instantly gratifying Polaroid images, reeking of processing chemicals, have finally been done in by endless Flickr Web pages full of digital images, flawlessly produced by cameras that do not require film, emulsion or anything bigger than a shirt pocket to carry them around.
If I were Flickr, and if my pockets were deep, and I wasn’t tied up in this whole recent Yahoo hullabaloo, I’d think seriously about purchasing the technology behind Polaroid’s film. Just to endear myself to the photogs even further. And as a way to get my name/brand on something out there in meatspace.
Update, 2010-03-25: It seemed only appropriate that someone (or ones) would come to the rescue. Well played.
Not only do I agree with your idea, I am glad you reported this! I bought a Polaroid over break because two young women I know here have been using Polaroid cameras to take whimsical pictures and then scanning them to use online and in digital collages. I liked what they’ve been doing so much that I wanted to get on the bandwagon. Jessica Parsons-Taylor’s Web site is (or at least, was) all about the Polaroid!