I worked for Polaroid in the late 90s and early 2000s started as an intern in college. They were still making polarized film and filters then and a lot of manufacturing in the US. One guy I worked with was tasked to destroy a large dumpster full of unsold polavision cameras. For a young adult it was a fun place to work and they were very kind to me. I’ve got tons of other stories!
Growing up my father owned a Camera and Projector Repair Shop in New Orleans. He had literally 1,000’s of cameras at any one time in his “shop” waiting to be repaired. Not like today where everything is “disposable.” People spent a lot of hard earned money for a quality camera. Anyway… I remember when the SX-70 was first introduced, my father had to attend classes in Boston, MS to learn as much as he could about this new technology. A couple years later when the Model 2 was launched I got one for my B-Day. And still have it some 50 years later…
As a 9th grader in 1962, I had saved months and months of allowance in order to buy a Polaroid J-66 camera at Shoppers World in Austin, TX. It was incredible! In 1964 or so, I remember upgrading it to Polacolor with a stick-on filter inside the lens, a plastic cover to modulate its electric eye and a new flash unit for a brighter flash. That incredibly well designed and built camera lasted for many, many years. I always longed for the newer SX-70 models but could never afford them. JJS
That was great. I agree, the SX-70 WAS the best instant camera ever. But I have to correct you on one issue - well two really. See, I lived through this being in the camera industry in 1980s and 1990s, and while Polaroid did initially sue Kodak, they REALLY put the heat up when Kodak introduced TrimPrint. This was a system when after the picture dried (about an hour) you could peel it away from the backing and cut it, mount it, whatever as a normal picture - something Polaroid could not. That was the final straw. Also, contrary to what many state, Polaroid did not win the lawsuit - they merely got an injunction to stop Kodak selling their instant film during the case. No film, no cameras. We were ordered to remove ALL Kodak instant cameras and film from shelves. As they could not sell them at this point, Kodak acquiesced and just got out of the Instant film market as moving forward defending the lawsuit would cost too much money. To be frank, there was much of Kodak’s film system that was different - especially TrimPrint - and I feel Kodak would have won. But we will never know.
I have my grandparents old OneStep, complete with the flash attachment. It's still in good condition. While I applaud the company that revived the film, $20 USD for just 8 shots is a bit much. Though in fairness, the Fuji ones aren't that much cheaper, and the photos are smaller. Interestingly, Kodak is making instant cameras again. However, these are digital cameras with built in dye-sublimation printers. Which I'm kind of tempted to pick up next time I go on vacation. It's weird that film is making a comeback. I guess for the same reason vinyl did. A lot of people still like having something tangible.
in pro studios, the view camera would also have a Polaroid back, so the photographer could shoot to 4"x5" and check the result before shooting to large format transparency. Those Polaroids split open to reveal both acetate negative and resin-coated positive print.
I had a Polaroid camera called ‘The Button’ - I think it was a very basic camera. It worked ok - I still have some of the photos I took with it. The problem was that the film got quite expensive, and because of that you got very choosy about how many snaps you would take. Of course, digital cameras, then smart phones made Polaroid film cameras obsolete - but they were good fun, and it was brilliant to see the image appear before your eyes.
I ran a camera shop in the 80s and 90s and we did a roaring trade in add-on self timers and remote shutter releases for Polaroid cameras, a popular accessory was the long ‘air-bulb’ shutter release, this could be operated hands-free by placing it between the buttocks and then simply clenching at the crucial moment to take the photo. Polaroid certainly didn’t call their camera ‘The Swinger’ for nothing!
@@SaturnCanuck - Absolutely! We had a lot of unhappy customers that missed the trade-ins and were asking for Kodak instant film long after it had been discontinued, including quite a few that had bought Kodak instant cameras at car boot sales without realising that film was unavailable.
I had a 95B Land Camera, when I was a kid. Film was still available for it in the late 1970's or maybe even the early 1980's. One of my older relatives bought it new around 1950 or '51; I think. I remember "varnishing" the photos, with the protective coating. I used it to take long exposures of the night sky, so I could see the streaks, which stars & planets left, as the Earth rotated.
film available fresh till the early 90s. I shot expired last batch rolls into the late 1990s with little issues, after that minor issues. About 5 years ago they started to be unusable. 3000iso type 47 was amazing, surprised it lasted that long.
@@tkmedia3866 Good to know,.that the film was available into the '90's. I went abroad in the 1980's for an extended period, leaving my camera & going into other pursuits, so admittedly, I made the assumption, that the film was gone, earlier than it actually was.
Fascinating as ever but shame the video doesn't show what happened subsequently to the Polaroid company - possibly mainly known today as branded cheap TV's sold at Asda?
I grew up not far from Polaroid’s offices in the Boston, Ma area and sometimes our family owned restaurant would cater them for the Christmas and New Year’s holidays…. They were one of the top companies in the metro Boston area and it’s sad that they only sell electronics made in China Looking forward to seeing part two
They still make the film in their Netherlands factory, the film cameras are made all over the place. The licensed electronics stuff, yeah it's Chinese stuff licensing their name. But the film project stuff remains their true product and hasn't been outsourced
*Edith Weyde* was a chemist who worked for Agfa in the 1920s and 30s, where she made the discovery that made it prosible to develop a photographic negative and positive at the same time. Agfa further developed this process for the purpose of copying office documents.. When Germany lost the war, all the german patents were up for graps, and Polaroid (Land) adapted it into a single-step photography camera which, itself, made history. The Polaroid company tends to "forget" this part of the history of instant photography.
The Weiss-Agfa process isn't very good for taking pictures - unless you like super grainy black and white (a valid artistic choice) It wasn't a finished product for cameras. Land definitely did important work developing the proces for cameras. But the Polaroid company glorifying Edwin Land as the lone genius is simply a myth. I'm not surprised that this kind of mythologising of the genius inventor-entrepreneur sounded appealing to the self promoting, self aggrandizing jerk Steve Jobs.
My dad always had Polaroid cameras, first was 104 with the original pack film, then an SX-70 followed by a 600. I had a Swinger which I used a lot for a while until I was allowed to use the SX-70. I still have the SX-70 and 600 to this day but haven't used either in years, mostly because for a long time film was almost if not impossible to get.
How things have changed from 1946…… All Telephones were permanently wired to the wall and cameras used film that took at least a week to develop….. And everything was analog! Cameras and phones have morphed into one device….. If cell phones were available back then, Land would’ve invented something else…..
The first camera phone wasn't released until 1999 (and had 0.11MPixels) so his daughter would have had a very long wait to see a very mediocre picture.
I still own a (well, now inherited) Polaroid 88 camera, where in a cold environment it's recommended to use the provided sleeve/envelope to keep the processing picture warm on your body. Biggest problem in my opinion was the film quality where the pictures faded away within a few years.
To open the SX-70 for repair you have to pull off the brown leather. She’s fixed and has a black leather finish. I think I have to take her out to make some pictures. Soon… Thanks for the video. I like these consumer products stories on “Little Car”. 👍👍👍
Not mentioned here, but they were used a lot in industry as well. If you needed to show someone else in the company a problem/failure/development/leak etc there was no other way than to take a polaroid and send it to them.
Thank you, as a South African I had no idea of Polaroids leading role in the economic boycott of Apartheid South Africa. Very progressive and forward thinking of them.
Memories, as a kid, of receivin' empty film packs from friends and relatives. I'd break 'em open to get the Pola-Pulse batteries. They lasted long after 10 shots.
My dad bought one of those Sx70 Polaroids. It NEVER TOOK ONE GOOD PICTURE. Idk what was wrong with it but it was the only one we ever had. I really don't know why we still have it? It was a pack color unit that folded flat. It was cool, would've been cooler if it worked!
And then comes the Vision 95, completely unusable today. By the way, are those black cameras in your background a Canon Ixus 130 and a Panasonic hc v180? Cause I coincidentally have them both
In the 1980s I took hundreds of Black and White Polaroids (of the peel the back off type) of Oscilloscope and Logic Analyser traces. The film was available from the company stores (along with solder resistors etc). Finding out who had the 'scope camera at any particular time was more difficult. A department myth was that the photos wouldn't develop properly if you didn't do the "developing dance". Was there any truth that you had to keep waving the photo in the air while it was developing? My Father bought one of the Kodak instant cameras. When they lost the patent battle Kodak had to refund purchasers the price of the now useless cameras.
@@LittleCar Doing some research it gets mentioned in Outkast's song "Hey Ya". Written in 2000, by a guy born in 1975 he was obviously familiar with the need to shake Polaroids, despite Polaroid themselves saying not to do it with the non peel types.
In the book, "Instant-The Story of Polaroid" the author (Christopher Bonanos) mentions that after the Outkast song came out, a Polaroid press release advised against shaking the prints as that can damage them. It's a great book that I'm guessing you've read, but I really enjoy this video (as well as your others in the consumer products series) and look forward to part 2.@@LittleCar
The shaking of the peel type film was simply to dry it quicker. I learned it the hard way when I put the freshly developed image into an envelope and it was ruined afterwards...
It seems odd that Polaroid should have choosen to call their cameras 'Polaroid Land Cameras', as if there were also 'Polaroid Underwater Cameras' and 'Polaroid Space Cameras' but, I guess, Edwin was such a visionary that he could call his products whatever he damn well wanted to! Shame the brand name went down the toilet when Asda bought it
The massive difference between Land and Job is Land clearly gave a cr@p about other humans. His family were an inspiration, he tried to help people. Jobs was just a monster driven by ego and megalomania
A comparison between Land and Jobs is totally useless. Land was an engineer who actually invented and created products. Jobs was a salesman who convinced people he invented the things he was selling. A good comparison for Jobs is Elon Musk, both just sold things built by others. A better comparison for Land would have been Wozniak, he actually created the products and was heavily involved in telling the world why there were great at the time.
Jobs and Musk are unequivocally the ones who made the things happen and the companies thrive. That's every bit the inventive engineering feat that produced the results we see today.
@@jamesengland7461 Jobs was a salesperson who from all the evidence and reports from staff did nothing but make vague suggestions and hinder the work as he didn't understand how it actually worked. Same for Musk. It's a shame that so many people apparently believe what Jobs said, and what Musk says, as opposed to the countless staff who say the exact opposite. Both did help their respective companies to thrive, buts that's just because they are good salespeople.
Link to part 2 - Polroid's downfall: ruclips.net/video/fRfilvlLQRQ/видео.html
I worked for Polaroid in the late 90s and early 2000s started as an intern in college. They were still making polarized film and filters then and a lot of manufacturing in the US. One guy I worked with was tasked to destroy a large dumpster full of unsold polavision cameras. For a young adult it was a fun place to work and they were very kind to me. I’ve got tons of other stories!
Growing up my father owned a Camera and Projector Repair Shop in New Orleans. He had literally 1,000’s of cameras at any one time in his “shop” waiting to be repaired. Not like today where everything is “disposable.” People spent a lot of hard earned money for a quality camera. Anyway… I remember when the SX-70 was first introduced, my father had to attend classes in Boston, MS to learn as much as he could about this new technology. A couple years later when the Model 2 was launched I got one for my B-Day. And still have it some 50 years later…
As a 9th grader in 1962, I had saved months and months of allowance in order to buy a Polaroid J-66 camera at Shoppers World in Austin, TX. It was incredible! In 1964 or so, I remember upgrading it to Polacolor with a stick-on filter inside the lens, a plastic cover to modulate its electric eye and a new flash unit for a brighter flash. That incredibly well designed and built camera lasted for many, many years.
I always longed for the newer SX-70 models but could never afford them. JJS
That was great. I agree, the SX-70 WAS the best instant camera ever. But I have to correct you on one issue - well two really. See, I lived through this being in the camera industry in 1980s and 1990s, and while Polaroid did initially sue Kodak, they REALLY put the heat up when Kodak introduced TrimPrint. This was a system when after the picture dried (about an hour) you could peel it away from the backing and cut it, mount it, whatever as a normal picture - something Polaroid could not. That was the final straw. Also, contrary to what many state, Polaroid did not win the lawsuit - they merely got an injunction to stop Kodak selling their instant film during the case. No film, no cameras. We were ordered to remove ALL Kodak instant cameras and film from shelves. As they could not sell them at this point, Kodak acquiesced and just got out of the Instant film market as moving forward defending the lawsuit would cost too much money. To be frank, there was much of Kodak’s film system that was different - especially TrimPrint - and I feel Kodak would have won. But we will never know.
Thanks for the additional info.
I have my grandparents old OneStep, complete with the flash attachment. It's still in good condition. While I applaud the company that revived the film, $20 USD for just 8 shots is a bit much. Though in fairness, the Fuji ones aren't that much cheaper, and the photos are smaller. Interestingly, Kodak is making instant cameras again. However, these are digital cameras with built in dye-sublimation printers. Which I'm kind of tempted to pick up next time I go on vacation. It's weird that film is making a comeback. I guess for the same reason vinyl did. A lot of people still like having something tangible.
in pro studios, the view camera would also have a Polaroid back, so the photographer could shoot to 4"x5" and check the result before shooting to large format transparency. Those Polaroids split open to reveal both acetate negative and resin-coated positive print.
I had a Polaroid camera called ‘The Button’ - I think it was a very basic camera. It worked ok - I still have some of the photos I took with it. The problem was that the film got quite expensive, and because of that you got very choosy about how many snaps you would take. Of course, digital cameras, then smart phones made Polaroid film cameras obsolete - but they were good fun, and it was brilliant to see the image appear before your eyes.
I ran a camera shop in the 80s and 90s and we did a roaring trade in add-on self timers and remote shutter releases for Polaroid cameras, a popular accessory was the long ‘air-bulb’ shutter release, this could be operated hands-free by placing it between the buttocks and then simply clenching at the crucial moment to take the photo.
Polaroid certainly didn’t call their camera ‘The Swinger’ for nothing!
Do you remember the trade-ins? Kodak would trade a customer's Instant for a Disc Camera.
@@SaturnCanuck - Absolutely! We had a lot of unhappy customers that missed the trade-ins and were asking for Kodak instant film long after it had been discontinued, including quite a few that had bought Kodak instant cameras at car boot sales without realising that film was unavailable.
I had a 95B Land Camera, when I was a kid. Film was still available for it in the late 1970's or maybe even the early 1980's. One of my older relatives bought it new around 1950 or '51; I think.
I remember "varnishing" the photos, with the protective coating. I used it to take long exposures of the night sky, so I could see the streaks, which stars & planets left, as the Earth rotated.
film available fresh till the early 90s. I shot expired last batch rolls into the late 1990s with little issues, after that minor issues. About 5 years ago they started to be unusable. 3000iso type 47 was amazing, surprised it lasted that long.
@@tkmedia3866 Good to know,.that the film was available into the '90's. I went abroad in the 1980's for an extended period, leaving my camera & going into other pursuits, so admittedly, I made the assumption, that the film was gone, earlier than it actually was.
I remember those Hypo sticks. The memory of that smell is ingrained in my mind as much as the smell of a fresh Ditto pop quiz...
Fascinating as ever but shame the video doesn't show what happened subsequently to the Polaroid company - possibly mainly known today as branded cheap TV's sold at Asda?
That's coming in part 2.
@@LittleCarhopefully will talk about the ponzi scheme.
I grew up not far from Polaroid’s offices in the Boston, Ma area and sometimes our family owned restaurant would cater them for the Christmas and New Year’s holidays….
They were one of the top companies in the metro Boston area and it’s sad that they only sell electronics made in China
Looking forward to seeing part two
They still make the film in their Netherlands factory, the film cameras are made all over the place.
The licensed electronics stuff, yeah it's Chinese stuff licensing their name. But the film project stuff remains their true product and hasn't been outsourced
Fascinating video - thanks Andy!
My dad had a Polaroid Swinger and an XS70 back in the day. They seemed like a magic trick to my youthful eyes.
My mum got one of those cost-reduced cameras in the 1980s. Like many I think she used it for a bit then discarded it.
As a hobby photographer and user of an instant cam, I was always curious. And here you are! Thanks!
Interesting history lesson of Polaroid. I have Polaroid film camera from 1994, but haven't used since 2004-05.
*Edith Weyde* was a chemist who worked for Agfa in the 1920s and 30s, where she made the discovery that made it prosible to develop a photographic negative and positive at the same time.
Agfa further developed this process for the purpose of copying office documents..
When Germany lost the war, all the german patents were up for graps, and Polaroid (Land) adapted it into a single-step photography camera which, itself, made history.
The Polaroid company tends to "forget" this part of the history of instant photography.
The Weiss-Agfa process isn't very good for taking pictures - unless you like super grainy black and white (a valid artistic choice)
It wasn't a finished product for cameras.
Land definitely did important work developing the proces for cameras.
But the Polaroid company glorifying Edwin Land as the lone genius is simply a myth.
I'm not surprised that this kind of mythologising of the genius inventor-entrepreneur sounded appealing to the self promoting, self aggrandizing jerk Steve Jobs.
Steve Jobs was not an inventor, but a ruthless salesman.
I loved my sx-70 camera in Daytona Beach in the '90s. Still got them!
Was a telephoto Polaroid ever made?
-or a Polaroid (film) camera ever made with a detached/replaceable lens?
My dad always had Polaroid cameras, first was 104 with the original pack film, then an SX-70 followed by a 600. I had a Swinger which I used a lot for a while until I was allowed to use the SX-70. I still have the SX-70 and 600 to this day but haven't used either in years, mostly because for a long time film was almost if not impossible to get.
Land should have simply pulled out his smartphone, taken a picture & showed his 3 year old daughter, that she could indeed see the photo "now".
How things have changed from 1946……
All Telephones were permanently wired to the wall and cameras used film that took at least a week to develop…..
And everything was analog!
Cameras and phones have morphed into one device…..
If cell phones were available back then, Land would’ve invented something else…..
@@robertdragoff6909 Well, from 1946... and 1986 for that matter.
@@BilisNegra
Good point
The first camera phone wasn't released until 1999 (and had 0.11MPixels) so his daughter would have had a very long wait to see a very mediocre picture.
@@MrDuncl Are you sure?
I still own a (well, now inherited) Polaroid 88 camera, where in a cold environment it's recommended to use the provided sleeve/envelope to keep the processing picture warm on your body.
Biggest problem in my opinion was the film quality where the pictures faded away within a few years.
To open the SX-70 for repair you have to pull off the brown leather. She’s fixed and has a black leather finish. I think I have to take her out to make some pictures. Soon… Thanks for the video. I like these consumer products stories on “Little Car”. 👍👍👍
Consumer products. Yeah, that's the topic. I think you have a better handle of the subject matter on this channel than I do!
great video - really looking forward to the cine one! Had no idea that existed (before my time)
Not mentioned here, but they were used a lot in industry as well. If you needed to show someone else in the company a problem/failure/development/leak etc there was no other way than to take a polaroid and send it to them.
Thank you, as a South African I had no idea of Polaroids leading role in the economic boycott of Apartheid South Africa. Very progressive and forward thinking of them.
‘Pull out the yellow tab, then pull out the white tab’
Memories, as a kid, of receivin' empty film packs from friends and relatives. I'd break 'em open to get the Pola-Pulse batteries. They lasted long after 10 shots.
Ah, the Swinger. Yes, I had one in my youth. And I used a lot more than just two film packs in it....
My dad bought one of those Sx70 Polaroids. It NEVER TOOK ONE GOOD PICTURE. Idk what was wrong with it but it was the only one we ever had. I really don't know why we still have it? It was a pack color unit that folded flat. It was cool, would've been cooler if it worked!
And then comes the Vision 95, completely unusable today.
By the way, are those black cameras in your background a Canon Ixus 130 and a Panasonic hc v180? Cause I coincidentally have them both
Errr... it's a Canon 400 something. The letters have rubbed off. And it's a Sony HDR-CX405. I have three that I don't use any longer.
I never had one, I had the one from the 80's. Took it to Oz, in 1990,an had to sell it, as I was short of money.
My first camera was a Swinger, then I got a Colorpack
In the 1980s I took hundreds of Black and White Polaroids (of the peel the back off type) of Oscilloscope and Logic Analyser traces. The film was available from the company stores (along with solder resistors etc). Finding out who had the 'scope camera at any particular time was more difficult. A department myth was that the photos wouldn't develop properly if you didn't do the "developing dance". Was there any truth that you had to keep waving the photo in the air while it was developing?
My Father bought one of the Kodak instant cameras. When they lost the patent battle Kodak had to refund purchasers the price of the now useless cameras.
I think the developing dance was a myth, but I didn't find specific information about it. I certainly did it - there wasn't anything else to do!
@@LittleCar Doing some research it gets mentioned in Outkast's song "Hey Ya". Written in 2000, by a guy born in 1975 he was obviously familiar with the need to shake Polaroids, despite Polaroid themselves saying not to do it with the non peel types.
In the book, "Instant-The Story of Polaroid" the author (Christopher Bonanos) mentions that after the Outkast song came out, a Polaroid press release advised against shaking the prints as that can damage them. It's a great book that I'm guessing you've read, but I really enjoy this video (as well as your others in the consumer products series) and look forward to part 2.@@LittleCar
The shaking of the peel type film was simply to dry it quicker. I learned it the hard way when I put the freshly developed image into an envelope and it was ruined afterwards...
It seems odd that Polaroid should have choosen to call their cameras 'Polaroid Land Cameras', as if there were also 'Polaroid Underwater Cameras' and 'Polaroid Space Cameras' but, I guess, Edwin was such a visionary that he could call his products whatever he damn well wanted to! Shame the brand name went down the toilet when Asda bought it
I was a spoiled kid in the late 70's and begged my dad to get a polaroid camera, le said this cost 1CAD a picture. I got it anyway.
After seeing that he was and idol for Steve Jobs, i noticed that the Polaroid logo is very similar to the rainbow apple... 🤔
The massive difference between Land and Job is Land clearly gave a cr@p about other humans. His family were an inspiration, he tried to help people.
Jobs was just a monster driven by ego and megalomania
Our Own Devices already has a good video. I would do something different.
A comparison between Land and Jobs is totally useless. Land was an engineer who actually invented and created products. Jobs was a salesman who convinced people he invented the things he was selling. A good comparison for Jobs is Elon Musk, both just sold things built by others. A better comparison for Land would have been Wozniak, he actually created the products and was heavily involved in telling the world why there were great at the time.
Jobs and Musk are unequivocally the ones who made the things happen and the companies thrive. That's every bit the inventive engineering feat that produced the results we see today.
The point of the comparison was the marketing actions of both Land and Jobs. Inventions unsold are useless, sadly.
@@jamesengland7461 Jobs was a salesperson who from all the evidence and reports from staff did nothing but make vague suggestions and hinder the work as he didn't understand how it actually worked. Same for Musk. It's a shame that so many people apparently believe what Jobs said, and what Musk says, as opposed to the countless staff who say the exact opposite.
Both did help their respective companies to thrive, buts that's just because they are good salespeople.
South Africa!!, not so w00t this time :(
At the time, I NEVER liked the photo quality (1960's & 1970's).
Where's the 2nd video?
Not finished yet.