All camera light meters, including Polaroid will react to the brightest parts of a scene. Polaroid film has a limited latitude, so the highlights will almost always trump the shadows. For a less contrasty image, avoid high contrast scenes, or shoot in flatter light, which has a tendency to desaturate colours. You just have to realise it's not like digital or film, more like transparencies.
Part of the mystique and attraction to/with Polaroids has ALWAYS been in the challenge to overcome it's shortcomings. Nothing was different back then. It was always a crapshoot. I remember you could expect that at least 3 or 4 of your shots would be disappointing enough to want to toss out moments after taking them. My recollection was that if you got 3 really good shots out of a pack, you did VERY well. The others were just "meh", just worth keeping. I admit not remembering ambient temperature being so consequential on color like these current Polaroids, so the chemistry isn't as forgiving, but not to some great extent. Anyway, Polaroids have never existed for the sake of quality, but for the sake of convenience and fun, and an important aspect is the photos become part of the occasion they're taken in. You'll even sometimes find Polaroids inside shots (like on a table developing) of later Polaroids, which is very meta, and really draws you into these shots decades later when holding them. The real magic of Polaroid that people tend to never realize is they're the only kind of photo, being both physical media and instant, that when holding decades later, you're holding the actual item that "was actually there", not just a secondary image. And even old 35mm photos that were developed later don't equate to this. While they may be "just about as old" as the image, by as little as few days difference (when getting developed), they weren't "actually there"... unlike Polaroids. It's like they were "living witnesses" of the image it bears. This really is a not-so-small wonder and time-travel-like quality they have, even if the shots they bear are always a bit crappy compared to other technology that was available. That is their appeal. And they're more fun. One more thing, the irony is that despite Polaroid being poor quality next to point-n-shoot cameras, you could at least leave the scene knowing your shot was at least as good as you've got. It's confirm-able, in realtime. Unlike with what might be a dud hiding in your roll of film you'll only discover much later at the drug store photo center with "regular" cameras. And that's happened to us quite a lot growing up. Having to hear the clerk say "sorry, the film messed up, that roll was lost", etc. Washing their hands of the loss. Or, not realizing your finger was in the way until it was weeks later and too late to reshoot it for security. So, Polaroid had some other selling-points like that as well.
thank you for your reaction! I do agree with you, the physical form is unique. While traveling a long time ago, I made photos of the people I met and also gave them a photo, that was always very much appreciated. That's not possible with a phone ;) The photo has meaning and not like 1 in a 1000 on a phone As an add-on, for me Polaroid photos works the best to capture an experience and when looking at it later, the still feel the experience. Because the photos aren't that good, it's not for recording a nice bridge on a city trip in my opinion :) I also shoot 35mm analog film, personally not a lot of problems with developing and when I think a photo will be special I will at least shoot 2 photos of the scene, to be sure :)
Thanks for sharing. I also love the classic look of Polaroid and have multiple cameras, but the photos are so inconsistent that find myself shooting with Instax Wide more often, which is a shame.
Haha true, up to a point ;) when a photo does work out, it is beautiful with the nice nostalgic look and that is not something you get from the instax 😉
All camera light meters, including Polaroid will react to the brightest parts of a scene. Polaroid film has a limited latitude, so the highlights will almost always trump the shadows. For a less contrasty image, avoid high contrast scenes, or shoot in flatter light, which has a tendency to desaturate colours. You just have to realise it's not like digital or film, more like transparencies.
Part of the mystique and attraction to/with Polaroids has ALWAYS been in the challenge to overcome it's shortcomings. Nothing was different back then. It was always a crapshoot. I remember you could expect that at least 3 or 4 of your shots would be disappointing enough to want to toss out moments after taking them. My recollection was that if you got 3 really good shots out of a pack, you did VERY well. The others were just "meh", just worth keeping.
I admit not remembering ambient temperature being so consequential on color like these current Polaroids, so the chemistry isn't as forgiving, but not to some great extent.
Anyway, Polaroids have never existed for the sake of quality, but for the sake of convenience and fun, and an important aspect is the photos become part of the occasion they're taken in. You'll even sometimes find Polaroids inside shots (like on a table developing) of later Polaroids, which is very meta, and really draws you into these shots decades later when holding them. The real magic of Polaroid that people tend to never realize is they're the only kind of photo, being both physical media and instant, that when holding decades later, you're holding the actual item that "was actually there", not just a secondary image. And even old 35mm photos that were developed later don't equate to this. While they may be "just about as old" as the image, by as little as few days difference (when getting developed), they weren't "actually there"... unlike Polaroids. It's like they were "living witnesses" of the image it bears. This really is a not-so-small wonder and time-travel-like quality they have, even if the shots they bear are always a bit crappy compared to other technology that was available.
That is their appeal. And they're more fun.
One more thing, the irony is that despite Polaroid being poor quality next to point-n-shoot cameras, you could at least leave the scene knowing your shot was at least as good as you've got. It's confirm-able, in realtime. Unlike with what might be a dud hiding in your roll of film you'll only discover much later at the drug store photo center with "regular" cameras. And that's happened to us quite a lot growing up. Having to hear the clerk say "sorry, the film messed up, that roll was lost", etc. Washing their hands of the loss. Or, not realizing your finger was in the way until it was weeks later and too late to reshoot it for security. So, Polaroid had some other selling-points like that as well.
thank you for your reaction! I do agree with you, the physical form is unique. While traveling a long time ago, I made photos of the people I met and also gave them a photo, that was always very much appreciated. That's not possible with a phone ;) The photo has meaning and not like 1 in a 1000 on a phone
As an add-on, for me Polaroid photos works the best to capture an experience and when looking at it later, the still feel the experience. Because the photos aren't that good, it's not for recording a nice bridge on a city trip in my opinion :)
I also shoot 35mm analog film, personally not a lot of problems with developing and when I think a photo will be special I will at least shoot 2 photos of the scene, to be sure :)
Thanks for sharing. I also love the classic look of Polaroid and have multiple cameras, but the photos are so inconsistent that find myself shooting with Instax Wide more often, which is a shame.
Thank you for watching! Yeah Ive heard that they are working on trying to make it better, but I cant see it yet 😆
How to shoot better polaroids: buy an instax square ;)
Haha true, up to a point ;) when a photo does work out, it is beautiful with the nice nostalgic look and that is not something you get from the instax 😉