Hands-on with Impossible PX100 polaroid replacement film

Look like very, VERY, poor results to me!

Looks like they spent too much money on the designer, and not enough on the actual film.

That looks incredibly bad to me.

Looks like typical images from the old polaroid to me. A lot of potential there. I am anxiously waitng for some 4x5 sheet film... I miss shooting 4x5 polaroids.

tough to warrant the price for 8 shots though, when expired film can currently be found for far cheaper...

though the manipulability [is that a word] could be a potential plus.

This can't be it!? Some comments on the linked site stated that this looks like Polaroid integralfilm pictures do, but anyone shooting Polaroids regularly knows that THIS is way off - unlike SX-70 or 600.

If this is indeed the final quality, then the project just became "impossible". But it also seems to me that the author of the piece didn't have a clue generally about Polaroid photography, SX-70 behaviour and filtering. As I don't read photomags, I don't know what the quality of journalism is there (it's aready bad in academic journalism), but even for a first hand preview, this article comes across as someone dabbling in the dark (or white, for that matter).

Also: 669 is a 3¼ x 4¼ packfilm, not integral! The reference to "expired 669" makes absolutely no sense. I guess the author meant 600 film (which is not Time-Zero).

Oh man, this is baaaaaaaad.

I'm not spending £20 for a box of film that you may get 1, possibly, usable shot.

It all looks so ridiculously soft as well like the film isn't even sitting where it's suppose to.

What a disappointment - I was planning to buy a truck load tomorrow. I'm gonna wait now.

TIP has told us that its problems stemmed from not being able to obtain exactly the same materials Polaroid used for its products. Whether this is true is unknowable -- perhaps Polaroid's patents failed to reveal critical points about the chemistry of integral materials.

Regardless, the results are far worse than the earliest images Polaroid made public for the original peel-apart process (qv, the classic, iconic image of Dr Land stripping the negative from a portrait of himself).

I suspect it won't be much longer before Fuji introduces its own Polaroid-compatible integral materials. (Fuji's current integral materials use Kodak topology.) Fuji was probably waiting to see how well TIP did, so unless this reviewer received defective materials, it appears TIP has failed quite badly -- which surprises me, given that it was standing on Polaroid's shoulders.

The Japanese are famous for waiting for Western companies to self-destruct (eg, Atari), then moving in. The market is now open for Fuji to introduce Polarod-compatible instant materials. Whether it does likely depends on whether it can find a distribution system that allows it to make a profit selling these materials at a price people can actually afford.

This film is already being called 'First Flush' by people because you're flushing your money down the toilet.

I hope they have something up their sleeve for future films, because this is shockingly bad. It seems like a MASSIVE mistake to let this happen.

I'm not spending close to £20 per pack with postage to get something that is frustratingly as useless as these test images.

Thanks for the review, you just saved my money!

Disappointing to see 100 film at work but I have gotten much better results from using 600 film with the filter.

Would that Fuji produce in Polaroid format an instant film with similar IQ to Kodak's original Colorburst film, which was in my opinion far superior in both colour quality and material (solid pearlized surface).

I bought two more packs of old 600 film after reading this review. Still waiting for PX600 test shots (and for color film this summer), but so far this release has been extremely disappointing. I'm all for the unpredictability of instant film and "artistic" shots, but if "artistic" means "grainy and chronically under/overexposed", count me out.

The emperor has no clothes :(

I don't get it. People are excited to pay a bunch of money for something that produces horrific results? It would be like if I charged $20 for a granite pebble, and claimed you could use it in place of an artist's pencil. Sure you can scratch up a piece of paper and make a dirty smudge or two, but the result is going to be anything but artistic.

This is just outstandingly stupid.

Why are you guys at 1854 making excuses for

this bad result?

Unless something was wrong with your test camera -- and I doubt it, because the Impossible promotional shots are almost as bad -- this film has turned out to be a colossal dud. They attempted the "impossible" clearly failed.

It's worse than New Coke or the Edsel. I can't

imagine anybody buying this. And I write this simply as a very disappointed Polaroid lover.

You never thought to, when outside, make adjustments with the light/dark dial? The film is quite sensitive; perhaps you'd have had more satisfying results?

Editor's note: We did just that. All three images shot outside used different "shutter speeds". One shot was made with the dial turned to light, another with the dial turned all the way to dark, and the last one in the middle. Now, we believe temperature played a role in the problems encountered, and further tests (Impossible is sending us new films) will help us determine the best settings to use with the PX100.

With all due respect, BJP, but there is some fishiness going on with this article. I sincerely dislike dishonesty and authors trying to get away with errors behind readers' backs. My comment quoted below here I submitted on your Facebook page and here, but it was not published by BJP after review - it seems it was not deemed appropriate enough. Don't like critical commenting about your authors, however, let negative commenting of readers pass through without letting them in on someone questioning the in-house expertise of your author? That is not professional publishing behaviour.

However, clandestinely, the erroneous reference from the author I pointed out, namely to expired 669 film was replaced in the text without a flagging of editing (as serious online publications now do). It now says 779, which was a professional film for 600, however, does not behave like this Impossible SX-70 either when expired.

Dear BJP editors, is this what you deem appropriate editorial behaviour?

Below, my original post critical of the author's' article. It should be up to the reader to evaluate my post. Looking forward to a statement from your side.

Editor's note: I'm sorry if your comment wasn't posted before, but we've had to deal with a backlog of comments on this particular story, as you imagine, it has been the subject of intense debate online. I did change 669 to 779, but that was before I saw your comment. I've been a Polaroid user for the past ten years, with several SX-70, Spectra and One series cameras, and have experimented with a series of integral films (I'll admit that I have not used peel-apart film in the past).

The shots I have made with this limited pack of 8 PX100 films used as many different settings as possible (use of ND filter or not, adjustments with the light and dark dial of the SX-70 Land camera I was using, as well as alterations in the temperature and pressure when developing the film).

As I have stated this is a limited hands-on test, and doesn't constitute a definitive opinion of PX100 (i.e. tests can't be pieces of journalism, they are merely a statement of opinion from a reviewer, and often these reviewers won't arrive to the same conclusion).

I watched the video conference film and then they showed the results of some 20 pro photographers who used their film in their SX-70's and at the end of the press conference showed up close (sort of) the images they used to later enlarge. I was really disappointed with the very soft images. They didn't seem to show any images which demonstrated the film's ability to achieve sharpness. And what about black and gray? I'm keeping my money in my pocket and wait until they put out an emulsion that has an ability to produce (if desired) some black and white and grays. Phil

It seems to me like overexposed pictures. Will the battery pack of the film be sufficient enough to manage the shutter of the SX?

i saw the pics on the TIP homepage and i was not totaly enthusiast but i thought "ok, not sharp, not deep black. but let's give this film a try. it's artistic in some way.".

after seeing these test pics... i have to say i'll save money and wait in hope.

i'm sorry for all those how worked hard at TIP but this is not the result expected.

i hope this pack was, in some way, defective.

one more thing, weather and temperature cannot affect the exposure so strongly. there's something that must be fixed.

I beta tested this film for them--4 packs. I got amazing results. I'm not posting my name because people have already threatened me when I challenged their negativity on Flickr. Like all new media, it takes some time to learn how to get results. I found that interior, filtered light shots worked best, whereas time-zero used to give me better results in bright, outdoor light. You can buy it or not, but it's an accomplishment, and will only get better.

zqVRpXCFWCN

ZwxQUY a href="http://wlmbsursadcp.com/" wlmbsursadcp /a , [url=http://sigqziqdfkhk.com/]sigqziqdfkhk[/url], [link=http://mtbntacozmpy.com/]mtbntacozmpy[/link], http://qtpmtbjoxswn.com/

Nice!

Tested my first pack of PX 100 on my Alpha 1 SX-70 today and results are splendid. I used the dark slide to cover the film and used my hands to get high develop temperature (Picture face down on the dark slide, sandwiched between my hands). Fantastic patina and feeling of age. Now I'll start to collect old and small frames:-) Buy film and keep Impossible alive!