
Strictly analogue: Polaroid's past, present and future - camtarn
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/sep/18/strictly-analogue-polaroids-past-present-and-future-a-photo-essay
======
romwell
Strictly analogue?

"Strictly analogue" talk for instant photography is needless fetishism.

I've owned a Polaroid SNAP* camera for over two years, and made hundreds of
shots with it. It _never_ fails to impress.

The pictures come out right away, and when you tell people "And by the way,
it's a sticker, put it on a postcard", their eyes _invariably_ light up.

Yes, it's a digital camera with a thermal printer inside (like one that prints
receipts, but in color). No, nobody gives a damn about it being digital, the
only thing that matters is that you press a button - a picture comes out. And
it doesn't have a screen because _it doesn 't need one_.

For all that, it's half the size and half the cost per print of a Fuji Instax
Mini, which means I just throw it in my shoulder bag and forget about it until
I need it.

Yes, it can save the JPEG as well. But on my last trip, I didn't put a memory
card in. Several people appreciated that when I explained it to them.

In the end, "analogue" is not the thing that people _love_ about instant
photography. It's the _instant_ part, (regarding the paper print that comes
out), the lack of screens to glare at, maybe the anticipation aspect, and not
thinking about pictures going to Facebook right away. For

And - in case of ZINK-based cameras - the fact that they're stickers.

My point is that the Impossible Project, however beloved (and yes, I've shot
that as well), is not the _future_. And I won't speak of the future, but a
decent chunk of _present_ instant photography - Polaroid in particular - is
_digital_.

And this digital present is great. Someone should tell the article authors
about it.

* Kodak Printomatic is, essentially, the same camera (which I also own), made by the same company, and compatible with Polaroid ZINK paper.

