Author Topic: Fujifilm FP-100c peel apart (Read 8508 times)

Aksarben · « **on:** April 09, 2016, 04:52:30 AM »

I know most of everyone on here knows that on Feb 29th Fujifilm announced that they were stopping production of the last peel apart film, the FP-100c film. There has been a petition to save it and one of the main members of the Impossible Project was going to Japan to speak to Fujifilm directly.

My thought is that they should have marketed the Fujifilm Fotorama FP-1 here in the U.S. as another choice to the limited Polaroid pack film cameras, and I think they would have a VERY strong interest in their pack film continuation. The idea on any company is to make money and their Instax line is making more headway than their pack films. However, they built and distributed Instax cameras for their film as well as made excellent integrated instant film IE Instax. Had they pursued the pack film camera export to U.S. I really think they would be surprised.

Now, as far as Instax, I have some ideas there as well.
Instax with Auto Focus like the former 500AF, with better integrated flash (true flash adjustment) like the 300, plus close focus ability PLUS a micro SD card and LCD screen on the back that lets you see the image you just took before you push the save/print button. When you would do that out would spit an instant "Instax" wide photograph just the way you wanted it. Later on, you don't have to scan that image into your computer to share on Flickr, Facebook or elsewhere as you could just remove the micro SD card and save those images into your computer. Make it Bluetooth and that would even be more advanced. THINK of it. A hybrid instant print camera, that printed what you wanted, with better focus, with better flash, and a digital image for later posting on the internet. I think the American people, as well as Asia and Europe folks would snatch it up left and right.

tkmedia · « **Reply #1 on:** April 09, 2016, 04:24:24 PM »

plus it would settle some of the people who want bw film, as they can fake it on the camera before printing.

Aksarben · « **Reply #2 on:** April 12, 2016, 02:27:31 AM »

Any idea if Fuji has reconsidered? I heard there was much push even from Impossible Project for them to keep it going. I've seen some nice cameras on eBay I would not mind getting but for the money it isn't worth it for the limited amount of film I have (FP-100C peel apart).

Kai-san · « **Reply #3 on:** April 12, 2016, 12:51:10 PM »

You can read about the development in the conversations between Fuji and Florian Kaps here:

http://the.supersense.com/blogs/news/118987267-save-packfilm-travelog-no-17-the-reply-from-fuji

Aksarben · « **Reply #4 on:** April 14, 2016, 01:49:59 AM »

Thanks for that! I went to the link and responded. Fujifilm needs to take a whole different approach. They need to sell a packfilm camera to the Americas for little more than it costs them and then advertise the heck out of it and their film. If they market, people will buy the camera and the film and they will be very profitable. Without autos, who buys gasoline? If all the cars you could buy were vintage and 25 years old, how much gasoline would be sold? How many miles driven? So it is with cameras and film. Kodak new that many years ago. Sell a camera cheap to take the film you make, and the rest is history.

Sandeha Lynch · « **Reply #5 on:** April 14, 2016, 10:22:55 AM »

Quote from: Aksarben on April 14, 2016, 01:49:59 AM

Thanks for that! I went to the link and responded. Fujifilm needs to take a whole different approach. They need to sell a packfilm camera to the Americas for little more than it costs them and then advertise the heck out of it and their film. If they market, people will buy the camera and the film and they will be very profitable. Without autos, who buys gasoline? If all the cars you could buy were vintage and 25 years old, how much gasoline would be sold? How many miles driven? So it is with cameras and film. Kodak new that many years ago. Sell a camera cheap to take the film you make, and the rest is history.

Except that the volume isn't there any more.

Take this shot from Khartoum, Sudan in 1939. Three Kodak signs ("Kodaks" in that time) on one street corner.

Probably replaced by signs saying, "Unlocking Phones Here".

Aksarben · « **Reply #6 on:** April 15, 2016, 01:28:32 AM »

Fujifilm "Instax" did great over the Christmas holidays. There has been a resurgence of nostalgia that even I had not noticed... until I saw my Grand Daughter, who's 16 become elated at a 33 1/3 LP vinyl record of The Beatles. One of her other gifts was a record player. When Fujifilm announced the shutting down of their production I bought 14 boxes of film for $14.95 each. I would have bought more, but I didn't have the cash. As is, it is very hard to find anyone to sell one box, and price is now $21.99 for the same film at the same place I bought it before. Film like this is down because no active advertising and promotion. There is a whole new generation that never experienced it before as well as older guys like me that like the nostalgia of it. But, I want newer cameras.. better lenses, better shutters, more manual controls for aperture and shutter.

At an Eye Doctor appointment just last Tuesday I took a picture of my Ophthalmologist with my Instax camera. It developed within a few minutes and both he and his young assistant were impressed. I was asked where she could get one? Of which I replied you can get it locally at Jo Ann's Fabric or you can find it also online at many places.

Make it dual digital/Instax and they would sell like hotcakes! People like a real picture to show or to give to someone, and a hybrid Instax-Digital would allow them to post to online media, and/or just print the picture they just took.

Aksarben · « **Reply #7 on:** April 20, 2016, 03:29:21 AM »

One thing to consider is if someone took it on to continue manufacture. I would NOT suggest Impossible Project. Belgium wages are around 9.12 Euro (equiv of 10.25 American) Japan is between 693 and 907 Yen, and figures about (equiv of 6.07 / hour American) Now China on the other hand could make the film and make it in large bulk for a lot less money at their equivalent wages of $1.30 American Dollar or else Mexico (0.99/hour) or India at $1.02/hour.

Ever wonder why I can buy film from Japan, Instax and cost about 76 cents per shot compared to my Polaroid Spectra camera film at (only comes in packs of

$3.37 each?

Personally I could see the Chinese start making it before I would see the Dutch.

lharby · « **Reply #8 on:** April 20, 2016, 08:36:18 AM »

I think if anyone makes it it will be nothing short of a miracle.

And I think there will be alot of pain before gain (much like IP).

Presumably there is alot of existing expertise at Fuji and at IP, which might well be lost of the entire production was moved to another part of the world. I think I would prefer quality over cheaper prices.

I mean sure if someone takes it on, and Fuji agree to cooperate and then it gets shipped to another country to lower production costs, awesome, but I think that is a very long shot.

hookstrapped · « **Reply #9 on:** April 20, 2016, 11:47:10 AM »

Regarding prices, Satish and I were talking last night about how low the price of FP100C was and that the market could take higher prices without lowering sales. In the US, a pack was about $9. Now, if you can find it, it's going for $30. I think a sustainable price is $20. Compared to IP and new ventures like new55, $2 a shot is pretty reasonable.

Aksarben · « **Reply #10 on:** April 23, 2016, 03:37:57 AM »

Quote from: hookstrapped on April 20, 2016, 11:47:10 AM

Regarding prices, Satish and I were talking last night about how low the price of FP100C was and that the market could take higher prices without lowering sales. In the US, a pack was about $9. Now, if you can find it, it's going for $30. I think a sustainable price is $20. Compared to IP and new ventures like new55, $2 a shot is pretty reasonable.

Exactly. Say Fujifim was not making the profit that they were hoping for. Well, it would have been loads better to just raise the price a bit and see how the market responded, rather than shut off the supply completely. I would think that they would see how much their film is in demand, and what people have been paying to get it. And, you are right about costs compared to alternatives. Let's say that they sold it so that it was somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.20 each. That would still be about 1/3 of what some of the other instant costs.

Aksarben · « **Reply #11 on:** April 24, 2016, 03:14:23 AM »

What if it went the other way on Fujifilm? What if there were a class action lawsuit against them for the loss of a product (film) that went with a camera that was either recently customized to work with their film, or one that they had sold customers, at great cost, that are now worthless because of the lack of film?

Indofunk · « **Reply #12 on:** April 25, 2016, 11:45:25 PM »

I remember an old Bloom County comic where the sleazy lawyer character takes a photo (at that time it would have definitely been film, therefore apropos to the forum) of Sean Penn, and Sean beats him to within an inch of his life with his own camera (wouldn't be surprised if it were my very own SRT102). So at the hospital, Steve Dallas (I believe that's the sleazy lawyer's name) is trying to figure out who to sue. He decides against Sean Penn ("juries LOVE famous people"), and also against his friend Opus, who told him to take the ill-advised photo ("NEVER sue poor people"), and decides to sue (in my example) Minolta Inc because they were criminally negligent in not putting a warning on the camera that states "taking pictures of angry celebrities may cause bodily harm." Oh, and of course also because he stands to make a tidy profit on it as they are a big company with gobs and gobs of money (at the time, natch)

Anyways, this sounds a little like that in the sense that you're going after a company with gobs of money that should supposedly have an altruistic streak and care about people's well being instead of aforementioned making gobs of money. But, of course, they don't. CAPITALISM.

Jack Johnson · « **Reply #13 on:** April 26, 2016, 03:37:56 AM »

Quote from: Sandeha Lynch on April 14, 2016, 10:22:55 AM

Take this shot from Khartoum, Sudan in 1939. Three Kodak signs ("Kodaks" in that time) on one street corner.

One day, someone will ask, "Where did all the Starbucks go?"

hookstrapped · « **Reply #14 on:** April 26, 2016, 10:14:18 AM »

Quote from: Aksarben on April 24, 2016, 03:14:23 AM

What if it went the other way on Fujifilm? What if there were a class action lawsuit against them for the loss of a product (film) that went with a camera that was either recently customized to work with their film, or one that they had sold customers, at great cost, that are now worthless because of the lack of film?

At best, we'd each get a settlement of $1.52 and no film. Though it might be an interesting way to raise the profile of the issue to help support (get investments) toward someone else taking over the manufacturing.

lharby · « **Reply #15 on:** April 26, 2016, 02:22:28 PM »

I watched this last night:

http://timezeromovie.com/

It talks about the demise of polaroid film and the subsequent success of the Impossible Project.

What struck me is that the technology to make integral film actually seems a fair bit more advanced than making pack film. I know they had to re-engineer some of the chemical processes, but the drive to make sx70 was borne out of the desire to try and reduce the waste of pack film. The chemicals being much more exposed.

Of course Dr Kaps talks about the 'impossibility' of the project, but it appears that making integral film was more advanced and demanding than making peel apart film.

Francois · « **Reply #16 on:** April 26, 2016, 02:30:41 PM »

I must say that yes, peel apart is much easier technically than integral film.
The thing that makes it easier is that you don't need an opacifying layer in the reagent like in integral film.
The whole process just runs on dye migration, something impossible has been successful at for many years.
So if somebody is willing to make the machines required to make the wrapper and impossible is willing to supply the negative, receiver and reagent pods, it should be possible to get it working.

Aksarben · « **Reply #17 on:** April 26, 2016, 03:41:24 PM »

Quote from: Indofunk on April 25, 2016, 11:45:25 PM

Anyways, this sounds a little like that in the sense that you're going after a company with gobs of money that should supposedly have an altruistic streak and care about people's well being instead of aforementioned making gobs of money. But, of course, they don't. CAPITALISM.

Well, not so much as with Sean Penn as above. It's the idea that there are many that just bought, or restore, or modified or bought modified cameras that had a reasonable expectation of some use for a few years. Even Kodak, when sued by Polaroid, had a buy out program. BTW, Fujifilm was making film for Kodak at the time. Fujifilm escaped being sued by going into a licensing agreement with Polaroid. They had technology in the magnetic tape field that Polaroid wanted. Even today their integrated "Instax" film has a Kodak feel to it and, like Kodak, exposes from the back. Something that IP should have thought about when doing their films.

It's more like a business that created a vehicle that used their special battery to work. And, this same battery also worked on some older "vintage" cars that did not run on gas, but these certain batteries. Everyone is buying the older cars, AND the new cars made by the manufacturer that take this battery. Then one day, they don't want to make that battery anymore, but an entirely different battery that does not go in any of their previous cars, but only in new designed cars that they only make.
Now the people are stuck with their older vintage cars, and the Fotorama FP-1 Pro cars that the mfg. made that are now destined to become worthless, because no ones else on earth makes that battery. They have paid very good money in expectation of a usable product, only to have it become useless because of the lack of batteries, so in essence they have lost money.

Francois · « **Reply #18 on:** April 26, 2016, 08:53:17 PM »

Looking into my crystal ball, Fuji will now introduce a new HDTV format peel apart film that will work with their cameras...

gregor · « **Reply #19 on:** April 28, 2016, 07:12:37 AM »

Looking into my crystal ball Fuji is going to simply discontinue it. It's the last remaining peel apart and their market isn't strong enough to keep it in production. It's that simple. If another organization picks up their patents, equipment, etc., great - but don't expect prices to be reasonable.

fp-100c is the least desirable of their peel apart films. When they discontinued 100b & 3000b it only lead to panic buying as well as opportunists buying in bulk and selling at inflated prices on eBay.

So we now see the eBay prices for fp-100c? Check out the prices for Polaroid Type 55-Dead stock that may or may not work.

As Marx would say, "People who forget history are doomed to repeat it."

As the Situationist International would say, "People who forget history have their head up their ass."

If it turns into a Impossible Project type debacle it spells DEATH.

Polaroid has alway been my favorite and I don't say the above with enthusiasm. In fact this development steers me away from photography. Type 55 and 165 were my go to films. Nothing compared.

Aksarben · « **Reply #20 on:** April 28, 2016, 01:01:43 PM »

I bought and watched the Time Zero movie mentioned above. Baffles me that these people did not connect the dots and figure out that Fujifilm really did not co-operate. They could have gotten a superior formula from Fujifilm as their Instax instant print (integral) film is light years ahead of what Impossible Project has come up with so far. it portrays colors as nearly as good as it gets, and snappy contrasty pictures. I do agree, that you save images in digital but you don't create a tangible "picture" from your photography in digital.

Fujifilm was making integral films for quite some time, not being sued by Polaroid helped. Their peel apart was the last of the kind, but they were also superior to the original Polaroids. Remember when you used Polaroid film and you waited too long... not long enough? I forgot to peel one of my pictures until the next day. Peeled it and it was fine. I've waited at least 3 minutes but sometime 20 minutes to peel. It was a self expiring formula that 'used' up it's chemical base pretty much.

I hope that CatLABS can continue the peel apart work. I HOPE that Impossible starts getting a bit more smarter in their films and pay closer attention to that of Instax.

limr · « **Reply #21 on:** April 28, 2016, 03:08:02 PM »

I agree that the Fuji Instax product is fantastic for instant prints. The colors are great. It doesn't handle too much dynamic range in the shot all that well, but it's just a matter of learning its limitations and working within them.

But for me, the Instax is the least exciting or useful form of instant film. What I found so inspiring about the peel-apart was how many ways I could use it: print, emulsion transfer, emulsion life, negative recovery. I could get 3 different interpretations of the same image with just one shot. I love doing the lifts and was just starting to plan a collage project when the announcement came. So just as I was getting deeper into that kind of work, they steal it away from me

The Instax is great an all, but I've tried mangling that print up in many different ways and there's just nothing to do with it once it shoots out the camera. So I have nice prints, which I'm not complaining about, but much of my love of peel-apart comes with the fact that the print can be the starting point, not the end point.

So I really hope someone can do something with peel-apart. In the meantime, I will carefully mete out my stash. I will be so sad when I use up the last pack!

Francois · « **Reply #22 on:** April 28, 2016, 08:59:39 PM »

Yeah, the dynamic range of Instax is not all that great. And it solarizes really easily.
I can still remember when I first took a shot with the sun in the image only to find out it had been replaced by a black hole!

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #23 on:** April 28, 2016, 10:18:45 PM »

Instax works just fine, but it's not exciting is it? I always preferred peel apart to integral anyway...grr.

Indofunk · « **Reply #24 on:** April 28, 2016, 10:20:56 PM »

Instax is also tiiiinnnyyyyy.....

Francois · « **Reply #25 on:** April 28, 2016, 10:53:51 PM »

Just Instax mini. I have both the mini and the wide and I must say that the wide is about the same size as SX-70. Just not the same ratio.

limr · « **Reply #26 on:** April 29, 2016, 12:33:27 AM »

Quote from: Francois on April 28, 2016, 08:59:39 PM

Yeah, the dynamic range of Instax is not all that great. And it solarizes really easily.
I can still remember when I first took a shot with the sun in the image only to find out it had been replaced by a black hole!

Me too. Although I like to think of it as an interdimensional portal

limr · « **Reply #27 on:** April 29, 2016, 12:35:31 AM »

Quote from: Ed Wenn on April 28, 2016, 10:18:45 PM

Instax works just fine, but it's not exciting is it? I always preferred peel apart to integral anyway...grr.

At least I can do emulsion lifts with the IP film, but yeah, there was always something more special about the peel-apart, even if I never did anything with the print. Maybe it's simply the memory of being a little girl and my father letting me peel the backing off of the print. It was so exciting!

Aksarben · « **Reply #28 on:** April 29, 2016, 04:51:15 AM »

Quote from: Indofunk on April 28, 2016, 10:20:56 PM

Instax is also tiiiinnnyyyyy.....

Compared to my Polaroid Spectra it is about 6.8% smaller is all. Not as tall, but a bit wider. Using Instax Wide film.
Produced a decent sized print for Instant. Now, if Fujifilm wanted they could have adjusted the size of the film and made them either compatible for Kodak Instant cameras or some of the Polaroid line just as easy.

lharby · « **Reply #29 on:** April 29, 2016, 09:22:11 AM »

Quote from: gregor on April 28, 2016, 07:12:37 AM

If it turns into a Impossible Project type debacle it spells DEATH.

If no one manufactures it, thousands of polaroid cameras, polaroid backs, and modified cameras will not work.

If someone manufacturers it all those cameras and backs will still work.

IP had a huge learning curve getting integral print to work, the early stuff was pretty shoddy, they admit that, and that is kind of the point of having a crowd sourcing project. They seem to be more stable now, thanks to people making early investments.

So I would rather have this film available even if the early iterations are not perfect, than have it disappear altogether.

What strikes me as strange is that you can still make photographic prints using C19/20th technology (silver gelatin prints, autochromes, cyanotypes etc.) if pack film is not made anymore it means that the technology will have evolved and become extinct in about 70 years.

Aksarben · « **Reply #30 on:** April 29, 2016, 01:23:42 PM »

CatLABS-Jobo of JP say that they are going to make it. My advice to them is don't re-invent the wheel. Impossible Project (bless their hearts) made integrated film for Polaroid SX-70, Spectra, and the like but they went about it the hard way. Fujifilm was already making very decent integrated film, and developed outside the camera with not nearly as much sensitivity to light, after the exposure, as does Instax. Correct me please, but didn't Fujifilm make films for Kodak under license before Kodak had to shut down? IP would have been better well served to have hired some of the Fujifilm people to help them make film.

My opinion (but also shared with other photographers I have met with) was that Kodak had good cameras, but Polaroid was better. Polaroid had good integral film, but Kodak was better. I had a EK-4 years ago. May still be in a box in the Quonset. I can get them locally at the nearby Antique Mall for around $8.00 but I don't really need non working camera. What I like about the Kodak was that it had it's own battery, not one with the film. What I like about the Kodak was their colors and really their technology was more like Fujifilm, the layer in the back developing first. In fact, Fujifilm's early integrated cameras took a film that when you trimmed off a tab could be used in a Kodak, which means that at any time, Fujifilm could have revived the film for use in Kodak if they wanted to. But, they wanted more than to just make film. Business 101 - Make profits everywhere.

Fujifilm make their own cameras and they were making their own films for those cameras, including the peel apart films. I think they wanted to control the whole enchilada (if that phrase is appropriate) and as such, perhaps dropped the pack film since they don't make their cameras anymore that use it.

CatLABS should concentrate on making a film exactly like Fujifilm as that is already the "wheel" and don't need to be re-invented. They should also do what Fujifilm did, and that was to make a decent camera, in house, that takes that film. Not redesign an old Polaroid, as there are only so many of them out there, and their re-design is a rather expensive compromise.

ADDENDUM: to Lhardy post above; I watched the documentary film, Time Zero. Didn't anyone else catch the "excuse" they had that "they couldn't use the chemicals that Polaroid anymore as they implied that they were either banned, like mercury, or not made anymore"? While all this time Fujifilm was making and continues to make a integrated film that develops extremely fast compared to what IP has come up with for color. I really don't like excuses like that. Especially when another company is making a similar film in Japan and selling it internationally.

Francois · « **Reply #31 on:** April 29, 2016, 04:01:20 PM »

I don't think Fuji would have helped Impossible since it would have meant shooting themselves in the foot with their Instax line of cameras.
When you think of it, it was all in the interest of Fuji to see Polaroid dead. For them that means selling more cameras and getting a monopoly on instant film products.

They don't care about peel apart because it doesn't allow them to sell a second product.

When lomo decided to make instant cameras that use Instax films, they had to design them so as to avoid any patent infringement. Did it please Fuji to see somebody else producing cameras for their films? Probably not simply because for every Lomo Instant camera sold it means one less Fuji Instax sold for them.

And since cameras are quite durable, most people will settle for buying only one.

hookstrapped · « **Reply #32 on:** April 29, 2016, 06:12:50 PM »

I think Fuji still makes disposable 35mm "fun" cameras, including underwater. So I thought why not a disposable peel-apart -- basically a film pack with a plastic lens and shutter attached in a cardboard box with a flash. Then I realized they would be competing with themselves.

I think we need to realize Fuji is a smart company that knows what it's doing and part of that is not caring about us. Nothing personal, it's just business.

Indofunk · « **Reply #33 on:** April 29, 2016, 06:31:15 PM »

Quote from: hookstrapped on April 29, 2016, 06:12:50 PM

I think we need to realize Fuji is a smart company that knows what it's doing and part of that is not caring about us. Nothing personal, it's just business.

This is what I've been trying to say.

Kai-san · « **Reply #34 on:** April 29, 2016, 07:53:32 PM »

It is a widespread misunderstanding that Impossible inherited the recipe for integral film from Polaroid, they did not. They also had to purchase some machinery that was not present in the factory at Enschede. Some of the people that used to work for Polaroid went over to Impossible, and if it had been so easy to make integral film, they certainly would have known it. As for banned chemicals that is a totally different ballgame in Europe compared to the U.S. The story about banned chemicals is not an excuse, it's the reality here.

Chalky · « **Reply #35 on:** April 29, 2016, 08:07:44 PM »

and many of the companies that made chemicals for polaroid, only made chemicals for polaroid, so when they stopped making film, those companies went out of business so were not available for impossible to use.

Fuji are a huge business, profits are their main measure.

I am watching the catlabs progress with interest and excitement, but no expectations..,

Indofunk · « **Reply #36 on:** April 29, 2016, 08:21:34 PM »

Quote from: Chalky on April 29, 2016, 08:07:44 PM

I am watching the catlabs progress with interest and excitement, but no expectations..,

This is probably the best thing to do, at least for one's own mental health

Aksarben · « **Reply #37 on:** April 29, 2016, 08:45:46 PM »

I've joined a forum with a whole lot of smart people!!
Hope to keep learning even at my age. LOL
Too bad there is not a "agree" "Like" or similar on these threads. I would be "liking" several in this past responses!

Francois · « **Reply #38 on:** April 29, 2016, 11:55:42 PM »

Well, we don't bother with things like like buttons. When we like a comment, we say it like in real life

(I tried pushing people's like button but just couldn't find it... they were mostly annoyed by me repeatedly putting my finger on their forehead

)

tkmedia · « **Reply #39 on:** April 30, 2016, 06:06:45 AM »

Quote from: Aksarben on April 29, 2016, 01:23:42 PM

My opinion (but also shared with other photographers I have met with) was that Kodak had good cameras, but Polaroid was better. Polaroid had good integral film, but Kodak was better. I had a EK-4 years ago. May still be in a box in the Quonset. I can get them locally at the nearby Antique Mall for around $8.00 but I don't really need non working camera. What I like about the Kodak was that it had it's own battery, not one with the film. What I like about the Kodak was their colors and really their technology was more like Fujifilm, the layer in the back developing first. In fact, Fujifilm's early integrated cameras took a film that when you trimmed off a tab could be used in a Kodak, which means that at any time, Fujifilm could have revived the film for use in Kodak if they wanted to. But, they wanted more than to just make film. Business 101 - Make profits everywhere.

Kodak's cameras were generally simpler, but Polaroids were more complex. The colours were more vivid on fuji/kodak compared to SX70 most likely because of the opacifying layer. Fuji could not have sold instant film in the US because of Polaroid, it would have been a disaster if they did and broke up their patent agreements. The first FI-160 was very close to compatibility with Kodak. I suspect part of the reason they released system 800 to simplify their cameras AND to make it even more difficult for people to use in Kodak cameras. And remember Fuji peel apart film cost at least 2x more in Japan than in does in the US.

i wrote this article a number of years ago... maybe there are some other details of interest. There are many other details that are not on there, but i dont have enough documentation or proof
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Fujifilm_instant_photography

Aksarben · « **Reply #40 on:** May 01, 2016, 03:18:44 AM »

When it is said that Fujifilm Instax developed from the back like Kodak, was that because their film was exposed from the back and not the front? Just wondering. That was one of the arguments brought to court from Kodak was that their film was very different from Polaroid in that the film developed from the back and didn't need the complex mirror that the Polaroid used. If there were such differences I am surprised that the courts held in favor of Polaroid suit.

You are right. There were licensing agreements between Polaroid and Fujifilm and while Polaroid was still "distributing" I suppose they did not want to cross that path with camera designs. Wouldn't make much sense to sue and cause Kodak to desist in making camera and film and then have Fujifilm continue on to make film for Kodak.

Since I had mentioned Kodak, I'll share 2 photos I dug out of the box today made with the EK-4 Kodak several years ago. I took the first picture of Tanya Tucker in K-Mart in Cheyenne, WY as she was walking by. By the time I got up to get her autograph, the picture had developed and she was very impressed with it. She signed the first one in red ink and I took a picture of her holding the first picture. Unfortunately age and probably some heat/sunlight has not been kind to the one photo. But the other is really a good example of what was achievable of the Kodak integrated instant film of that day.

Francois · « **Reply #41 on:** May 01, 2016, 01:56:27 PM »

You can edit your own messages as much as you want. Just look for the edit button on top of your message. It allows you to remove the images and reupload smaller ones.

As for instead, yes it does expose through the back. I know many people don't believe it because of their black opacifying layer but it really does. It's also a much simpler way to make film since the pigment migration doesn't have to be through it like polaroid.

Aksarben · « **Reply #42 on:** May 01, 2016, 04:28:17 PM »

Wondering something else. I saved the peel apart "negative and when it dried I taped it to a plate and used a little bleach with water and soft scrub brush to remove the black on the back side of the FP-100c backing and rinsed the negative off in water and hung up to dry. Would it be of any benefit to immerse it in a bath of my Ilford Rapid Fix before rinsing? I remember on my Polaroid type 55 PN I could bathe the negative in Sodium Sulfite solution and dry it for preserving it.

Also, I work as an Assoc. Winemaker at a local winery, and do the lab. I mix up a lot of my own reagents from chemicals we have in the lab. I have a really hard time believing that there are no longer chemicals out there that could have been used in the original Polaroid films. I go to VWR and Hach Chemical and see such an enormous array of chemicals. I even have sodium sulfite in the lab in a 500g jar.

Francois · « **Reply #43 on:** May 01, 2016, 09:37:03 PM »

Those fuji negs don't need anything else than removing the back. But I must say, their entire system wasn't designed to produce a usable negative in the first place. This is more of a hack than anything else, so long term preservation might be an issue. That's why I always recommend scanning them.

It's also true that there are chemicals that have disappeared for various reasons. Too toxic, too unstable, too flammable.
Over the years I have compiled a book of formulas and you'd be amazed at how many formulas and chemicals have gone away. And I can name tons like mercury intensifiers, Meritol, speed increasing developers based on 2(beta-hydroxyethyl) aminophenol sulphate (aka HEAP sulfate)...

tkmedia · « **Reply #44 on:** May 01, 2016, 10:45:34 PM »

Just because you can get a lot of chemicals does not mean you can get the same chemicals for use in manufacturing in a different country.

Aksarben · « **Reply #45 on:** May 02, 2016, 04:47:33 AM »

Well, whatever chemicals Fujifilm in Japan is using seem to work pretty darn good. As far as pack film, again, their peel apart film was superior to what Polaroid offered (my opinion) and if China, Mexico or even U.S. started making it, one would presume there would be no difficulties. Maybe Soviet Union will pick it up. There are many "films" made in the Soviet Bloc countries as is.

tkmedia · « **Reply #46 on:** May 02, 2016, 10:13:17 PM »

In the past, Polaroid made packfilm in Waltham (US), Queretaro (Mexico), and Vale of Leven (Scotland)

Indofunk · « **Reply #47 on:** May 02, 2016, 11:16:29 PM »

Quote from: tkmedia on May 02, 2016, 10:13:17 PM

In the past, Polaroid made packfilm in Waltham (US), Queretaro (Mexico), and Vale of Leven (Scotland)

My Dad worked at the Waltham plant for a long time.