2010-05-15 // 10:13:26
lambis
Ich Hasse Dich, Ich Hasse Dich, Ich Hasse Dich!!!! :-)
Serious I Loveee it. this Grain this moody warm Brown and the Eraserhead wibes i get.
Hate you as i have tough 3 filmpacks untill now and cant archive a desent look , You need to give me some of your magic :-)

Exeptional photo

Gruesse aus Sweden
^
Thanks for the hatred. I'm sorry to say that you won't get this look out of your PX. And nor will I. It was a special film that Impossible sent out to the test photographers which they haven't made available to anyone. And who knows if we'll ever get our hands on it again. Most of us liked it a lot more than the type that's on sale, but apparently this special film didn't look this good for very long - went very brown after a few days.

Have you tried using the PX 600 instead of the 100? You can turn the exposure wheel to dark or use an ND filter and it's much easier to use than the PX 100.

The only tips I have for the PX 100 are to try strong artificial light with a darker setting and to try to keep the film cool (that goes for the 600 too).

2010-03-30 // 11:36:19
Jay
This has been been my absolute favourite since I saw it in the IP gallery. As in your comments below, I think noiders prefer screwed up pola-effect shots but I and the rest of the world put some store in a good photograph full-stop. This is such a beast. Now then, I think, what I think is..... well here's the thing.... I think that grain effect is Ilford magic not polaroid or impossible magic.... I think it's a dye-cloud type negative..... the more exposure the bigger the dye-clouds (grain, except it isn't film grain it's a little cloud of dye)..... more detail in the dark areas.... it's like exposing Ilford XP2 at 50 ASA.
I might be talking complete hogwash but if I'm not it's very exciting.
^
Thanks Jay. I'm glad so many people like this one. Taking it in my hands and looking at it for the first time was like holding a freshly hatched baby bird as it opened its eyes and first saw the world. It was like seeing it looking back at me - the first creature it had ever beheld - and softly chirping "Mama, mama, stop slobbering on my head give me some worms NOW."

I don't know how the fine-grained-shiny- thing business really works, but I like to think that nobody planned it and nobody will ever understand it. But whatever it is, it's very exciting indeed. Fingers crossed that we can all get some of this stuff soon.

2010-03-29 // 17:02:46
rodeo
Oui. I am a glutton for punishment - hence my expired SX-70 addiction. And yes, there is something to be said for taking great shots with materials that are rather lacking...I always find on here, as opposed to Flickr or anywhere else, that people like the messed up pictures, or my failures, whereas everywhere else everyone likes my stuff with the 600SE which is more precise and 'perfect'...
^
Quite odd really, when you think about it. A lot of us must be suffering from the same complex.

2010-03-29 // 16:29:05
rodeo
Though it's hard to look fondly at any kind of failure! I liked 43 MUCH better too...
^
Yeah, you say that, but we're a funny bunch round here though, aren't we? I reckon that if the film wasn't capable of producing some quite outrageously repugnant results every now and then, none of us would have any respect for the good shots at all. We'd say it was too easy to take the kind of shots that only looked good because of the film and not because the shot itself was anything special. And we'd find it too well-behaved and do all kinds of bad things to it just to fuck it up. So maybe its better to have a film that can fuck you good and hard with three different dildos when you least expect it than a film that just lounges about looking pretty but you have to keep slapping it about and slicing it up, just to keep a bit of interest up. Oui? Non?

2010-03-29 // 16:17:22
rodeo
So true...I failed miserably mostly. I take outdoor pictures on the whole and it was almost impossible!! but not quite..as proven, nothing is really impossible.
^
Though it worked much better indoors, I found the indoor failures could be truly horrible - all sludgy and warty - whereas the outdoor failures were often pretty cool in a sun-bleached newspaper sort of way.

2010-03-29 // 14:22:28
CDR
That's probably true.

Just to let you know, i'm having a very bad morning. My backspace key has flown off the keyboard and i can't get it back on.

ps// it's nice to see at least some people could work the film properly.
^
It wasn't me what cracked it, it was the great indoors. Invite your trees and your horses inside for tea.

2010-03-29 // 13:27:18
CDR
agree with everyone.


^
Consensus on Polanoid? Whatever next?

2010-03-29 // 11:44:22
emilie79
agree with carmen
^
Thank you Emilie. It was a happy moment when this eye looked out of the frame at me for the first time!

2010-03-29 // 11:21:07
RaymondMolinar
well said.

i love everything about this photo. I only hope that i can get some shots like this.


^
This was the 043, which was different to the film that's on sale now. It was grainier. I think most people it more.

For all my indoor shots, I used a small "softlight". It seemed to bring out much more sharpness and contrast than any other kinds of light - and that applied to both types of film.
^
Sorry, I meant "most people liked it more".