Fuji Instax Film on a 4x5 camera

[Mick Fagan]

This is something I picked up while watching another clip about the UK photographic show held earlier this year.

What I have never really been to concerned about was the use of Polaroid on large format cameras, mainly because I could never afford to use their product, and also because the image quality was to my mind inferior; but I always conceded that as a use for a reference about exposure, or in this case for the model to understand what was happening a Polaroid was always very good.

This is something new, in fact the first time I have heard about it, it takes Fuji Instax film and the back is compatible with most 4x5 cameras. Interestingly the camera used is what I have been using, so I know this would fit.

What is important starts just after the 23 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmui6dRRMCY

Things are still happening, eh....

Mick.

[Maris]

I'm surprised that Marcus is so unsure of his framing, focus, and exposure that he is using the Lomography Graflok 4X5 Instant Back as a proofing device. Outdoor settings in soft light are not that tricky.

The future of this gadget, I predict, will be the production of final original works. The photographer styling as an artist should relish the independence from laboratory services or computers or printers; just one at a time raw picture creativity. And pretty soon someone will tile scores of these little pictures in a big frame and declare it a major work. At least until their art's grant money runs out.

Back when I shot studio product and technical for a multi national company we "murdered" Polaroids by the hundreds. It was good to get the variables right but half the job was sending the art director's assistant upstairs to get the Polaroid ok-ed so we could break down the set and start on the next shoot. I guess art directors are still the same: knowing exactly what they want but only after they see it.

[Walter Glover]

Ain't dat da troof Maris.

Foe a time we had aa printed label we stuck on the back which the client signed as approval.

[Mick Fagan]

Maris, unbelievably accurate assessment; Andy Warhol RIP.

My experience with Polaroid comes from the other end of the process. Running the processing lab (Dip N Dunk) and continually being asked to emulate the Polaroid reflective viewing experience with an E6 tranny on the light box, which was sometimes quite exasperating.

I never gave it a second thought as to why Marcus would require proof of his exposure regime, until you mentioned it. Then I remembered the set-up and noted that his bellows were fairly extended, maybe he just isn't too sure about the factor needing to be added. He also had a fair bit of front rise and I don't think the standards were parallel, which may explain why the models feet were as soft as they were.

The other aspect is to elaborate for viewers unfamiliar with using a camera without an inbuilt light meter, let alone one making adjustments as it measures the light coming off the film on the fly...

Regardless, his last picture with just the face, was very good and smacks of full extension, and as he mentioned, possibly getting an extra bit of extension from the film pack being about 15mm further back. I'm sure the Instax helped with getting exposure bang on there. I'm assuming that picture was a scan of the Instax print, which was then manipulated heavily to get the very pleasing end result.