Join 3,438 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Can you save Polaroid?
March 12, 2008 10:18 PM   Subscribe

Save Polaroid The Polaroid company announced last month that it will stop making instant film next year. Save Polaroid is lobbing Fuji Film and Illford to license the instant film technology and save the product. For a good link about the history and current state of Polarod watch this video by Michael Blanchard.
posted by doug3505 (62 comments total) 14 users marked this as a favorite

 
I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for them because it was essentially a specialist, very expensive product to begin with. Last time I looked at Polaroid films, and this was probably about a decade ago when they were still on supermarket shelves, it was I think about $25 for 10, 12 shots? The practical functionality of Polaroids has been taken over by LCDs on digital cameras, leaving Polaroid fans sitting in the same group as the Lomo/Holga set. Which is cool for them, but really, there's no practical, mainstream use for Polaroids anymore.

That said, Polariod technology is pretty old...is it still under patent, or what? What's stopping a specialist company starting up to make the same thing?
posted by Jimbob at 10:40 PM on March 12, 2008


a specialist, very expensive product to begin with

Umm, not really: "when, on Christmas day, his three-year-old daughter asked to see the photographs her parents had taken earlier that day. Prompted by his daughter's query, Land conceived, in a flash, an instant, self-developing film and a camera that would process it."

...seems about as mainstream as it gets.
posted by unmake at 10:47 PM on March 12, 2008


..that said, the only people I know who shoot polaroid are hipsters.
posted by unmake at 10:50 PM on March 12, 2008


I'm hoarding Polaroid film so I can properly photograph my extensive slide rule collection.
posted by Tube at 11:02 PM on March 12, 2008 [2 favorites]


As I recall, and I have no real expertise here except age, Polaroid began to decline in importance right around the time that the one-hour photo booth suddenly became ubiquitous.

So it's been a niche product for 25-30 years. Well, it was always a niche product, but it did have its heyday.
posted by dhartung at 11:03 PM on March 12, 2008


One of the people behind this, Twin Cities artist Sean Tubridy, is responsible for a series of photos that really demonstrate the value of Polaroid film. His shots of toys are especially excellent.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:04 PM on March 12, 2008 [4 favorites]


It is really just the art photographers that use it today. Oh and some people in fashion, there the cost is not an issue. You know the 20x24 Polaroid? Yes that is 20x24 inch film. I have worked with a friend making photos there. It is a wonderful machine.
posted by doug3505 at 11:05 PM on March 12, 2008


There's an interesting 60 Minutes clip about Polaroid's demise on my brother-in-law's blog.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:15 PM on March 12, 2008


Those are nice shots, Astro Zombie, but I'm struggling to work out why a Polaroid camera was necessary to take them.
posted by Jimbob at 11:20 PM on March 12, 2008


I'm struggling to work out why a Polaroid camera was necessary to take them.

The photo album viewer in the Playstation 3 animates dropping Polaroid shots from digital photos. Then you get the recent reference from Outkast. The Polaroid is definitely a metaphor for something that tickles pop culture's fancy.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:25 PM on March 12, 2008


Shake it, shake it like a polaroid picture ... Just doesn't work with digital.
posted by Bighappyfunhouse at 11:51 PM on March 12, 2008


Jimbob, you're right. The tech is too old; it's not under patent. Fujifilm has their own lines of instant film. The "professional" peel-apart Fuji film works fine in old Polaroid packfilm cameras. I shoot with an old Polaroid 100 camera and I must say that Fuji's film blows away Polaroid's in almost every respect. I'm hoping Fuji keeps making it. Fuji's consumer Instax line is not compatible with the square-format SX-70 and 600 lines that most people think of when they think Polaroid these days, though. They're a huge company and the likelihood of them picking up production of those types of films is probably quite low.

Ilford may be a better bet, as they're smaller and more in the specialty market. People have gotten rather promising letters back from them saying that they are quite interested in picking up production from Polaroid, but it's all up in the air for now.

It's sad, really. For almost 30 years, Polaroid came out with almost nothing but crap cameras. Polaroid became synonymous with low quality and I think that hurt them a lot even decades before digital became ubiquitous.
posted by zsazsa at 12:07 AM on March 13, 2008 [1 favorite]


The most unique use I've seen of a polaroid camera is for a host to provide one to pass around at a party. There's a social element to the polaroid that does not exist with digital. Everybody stands around in equal anticipation of the photo's reveal. Even with a digital camera with a built in printer, there's still an element of isolation and disparity of anticipation between the photographer and the photographed. You also guarantee in the short term that the photo is an original, which can both make for more daring photos and a one-of-a-kind keep sake. Digital pretty much says, "your naked/drunken antics will be posted on the Internet by the end of the business day" and memory cards can be undeleted.

That being said, the day we got rid of the gawd awful instant film passport photo camera at the Copy Place and replaced it with digital was a new dawn and hopefully saved me from weird, blueish-green instant photo goop cancer.
posted by Skwirl at 12:09 AM on March 13, 2008 [2 favorites]


Skwirl, people have done some pretty cool stuff with those old passport photo cameras. I kinda want one.
posted by zsazsa at 12:16 AM on March 13, 2008


Obviously, sales of instant film haven't been profitable. These film companies aren't going to keep selling a product just because some people will be sad if they don't. Honestly, I don't understand how some people get the idea businesses give a damn about them.
posted by Citizen Premier at 1:50 AM on March 13, 2008


HOWEVER, even if the demand is small if it is steady: as the flickr streams shows, indeed there seems to be, film companies may keep a product, albeit the price may increase even more than what it is now. Also, it may also be that the film companies may decide to keep an item for their image/PR reasons. Since Polaroids to many people if for many some kind of reminiscence of the good old days in the past, it may be a good marketing strategy for companies to keep it so that they seem to take photos more "personal" than the other current all digital shoot photos by the hundreds markets.
We'll see what happens, but personally I can't imagine instant photos disappearing...what will happen to all those instant photo booths??
posted by insatiablehee at 2:09 AM on March 13, 2008


*ch-click*

*whir*

*shake-shake-shake*

┌─────────────┐
│┌───────────┐│
││ ││
││ ││
││ . ││
││ ││
│└───────────┘│
│ │
└─────────────┘

posted by Rhaomi at 2:09 AM on March 13, 2008 [20 favorites]


Save Polaroid is lobbing Fuji Film

That's a good way to put an eye out...

We'll see what happens, but personally I can't imagine instant photos disappearing...what will happen to all those instant photo booths??

I just assumed the modern ones were taking digital pictures and printing them on glossy paper.
posted by hjo3 at 2:23 AM on March 13, 2008


A couple of years ago I saw a doc on fashion photographers and they were using polariods for test shots. I presume they've all switched to digital now.That's the only time I've seen them used in years. (well apart from a few youtube video things).
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:26 AM on March 13, 2008


I just assumed the modern ones were taking digital pictures and printing them on glossy paper.

Yeah, and lots of them take a single shot and print it four times, which takes all the fun out of it. Interestingly, the last time I had a photo taken for a Passport or some other ID, they used a sort of specialised Polaroid camera (with four lenses?) that printed a quadruple image.
posted by jack_mo at 3:46 AM on March 13, 2008


I always found Poloroids creepy. All I can think about is this.
posted by dasheekeejones at 3:49 AM on March 13, 2008 [1 favorite]


I've always loved Polaroids. However, the company recently announced a printer that does the same thing as their film does, except it plugs into any camera. Like its film, the ink is in the paper, not in the unit itself.
posted by dobbs at 5:24 AM on March 13, 2008


The death of Polaroid is sad, true, self-inflicted and over-stated.

Polaroid used to represent the pinnacle of design and functionality. They were like Apple without a Microsoft.

The SX-70, for instance, is a miraculous piece of technology, and if you get the chance you should monkey around with one just to get a sense of how well designed the thing is. You don't even have to take a picture. And, really, you couldn't. They stopped making the film that it took several years ago (you can modify the camera to take the inferior 600 film, and another company made some custom stuff, based on the 600 film, but still.)

One hour and digital photography started to kick Polaroids ass, so what did they do? They started putting out cheaper, shittier cameras. They gambled MILLIONS on the iZone, a camera for which the film was roughly as expensive as regular Polaroid film, but the shot was the size of a postage stamp. And looked like it was shot through a quarter inch of milk. That camera was so shitty you could hear it suck. "So, not only can other technologies give me pictures quickly, and cheaply, but they will be vastly better? I think I'll pass on the 'roids."

My point is that Polaroid is already dead. The tech you alluded to, Dobbs, Zink, is promising, but Polaroid just licenses it from the Zink company. Zink has it's own challenges, and has made some stupid decisions, but that's a different post. Anyway, all Polaroid is now, and has been for years, is a label to put on shitty DVD players. Literally. The name is owned by a company that just buys brand names and squeezes juice out of them. Polaroid is Burma-shave.

Zink, interestingly, was formed from tech, IP, and engineers bought at the Polaroid bankruptcy sale.

So here's the thing: still I LOVE Polaroid. A Polaroid, unlike other pictures (particularly now), is a discreet object. It's an artifact of a moment in time. Actual light reflected off of an actual object and left a mark on the actual piece of paper your are looking at.

A Polaroid says, "This happened. This was."

I like Polaroids so much I've taken one each day since 2002.

The peel-apart ones, though. I like them better. Unlike basically ANY other picture, on a peel apart Polaroid the emulsion is on the surface of the print, first generation. The things are just innately glorious. Instant peel-apart 3.25 x 4.25 film is used to proof medium format photography, in fashion and other professional applications, and there is an enormous active install base. Fuji makes tons of it. It would shock me if it went away anytime soon.
posted by dirtdirt at 6:07 AM on March 13, 2008 [8 favorites]


.
posted by WalterMitty at 6:11 AM on March 13, 2008


While reading through all of this, I kept thinking to myself about how little I care about the death of Polaroid, until I remembered this:

For several years, on a friend's refrigerator, there hung a closeup Polaroid of an exceptionally large penis apparently taken at a party at the house. No one seemed to know who the penis belonged to, and no one would 'fess up. All who saw the Polaroid, male and female, straight or not, all praised and admired this mysterious penis. And it WAS a great mystery; it always made for fantastic conversation and speculation. Then one day, the shot just disappeared, and until this day, no one is entirely sure who's gargantuweiner it was. That magic couldn't have happened with Polaroid. Hats off to ye.
posted by Cat Pie Hurts at 6:22 AM on March 13, 2008 [4 favorites]


As a child of a Polaroid employee, the sound of the picture coming out of an SX-70 is something I’ll always remember. Tczzzzz-dzzzz-dzzz. It really was a cool camera. The way it folded up flat was like magic, like George Jetson’s car. And for the love of god, stop shaking the pictures. They’re not going to develop any faster.

Yep, it sure was something back in the 1970s. Since then I’ve realized that Polaroid is crap. Good riddance. Hipsters will now have more money to spend on vinyl records.
posted by bondcliff at 6:29 AM on March 13, 2008


I liked my polaroid camera for the short period of time I had one, but at the time, the cost per photo came out to something like $.50+ if not more.
posted by drezdn at 6:29 AM on March 13, 2008


If Polaroid (the film, not the company) does really die, a goodly number of photographers, including me, are going to horribly, horribly miss Type 55. It has a truly special look and produces a negative right on the spot. Fantastic stuff, and very good to work with.

It will be a sad world when the only things available are those which directly appeal to the mass market. What a short sighted outlook.
posted by Bovine Love at 6:33 AM on March 13, 2008


Oops. Well, you can google Type 55 for yourself.
posted by Bovine Love at 6:33 AM on March 13, 2008


otnemem
posted by cashman at 6:52 AM on March 13, 2008


A couple of years ago I saw a doc on fashion photographers and they were using polariods for test shots.

This is not just to proof the shots, digital is good for that. When you can give a model an example shot, especially if you've got them in some unusual getup or pose, they become much more cooperative and relaxed.

"I must look ridiculous with this flower pot on my head! ... Oh, how pretty!"
posted by StickyCarpet at 7:08 AM on March 13, 2008


It is sad, but as has been stated, the current cameras and film was awful. Still fun, but those old Polaroids, the ones you find in thrift stores with the decorative edges and, well, anything that wasn't of the instant 600 variety. Great stuff! Fuji makes better pack film now anyway.

My all time favorite use of polaroids.
posted by JBennett at 7:26 AM on March 13, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ah, the architectural myth of the Harvard Science Center building:
"The Science Center was completed in 1973, designed by Sert, Jackson and Associates. The main architect was Josep Lluis Sert (1902-1983), who also helped to design Holyoke Center, Peabody Terrace, the U.S. Embassy to Iraq in Baghdad, and lots more. From 1955 to 1969 Sert was the Dean of the Graduate School of Design.

Part of the funding received for the Science Center's construction came from a $12.5 million gift from an anonymous donor. It was soon leaked that the donor was Edwin Land '30, S.D. '57, who helped to found the Polaroid Corporation in 1937. Thus spawned the local legend that the Science Center was designed to resemble the Polaroid Land camera, a myth that has been alluded to by tour guides for decades. Sert was outraged by the insinuation that his design was influenced in such a way." *
posted by ericb at 7:33 AM on March 13, 2008


Polaroid is especially useful for Kirlian photography.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:41 AM on March 13, 2008


This is another example of a firm who had no idea how special its products were or how to market them. Ive got a wonderfully rubbish 'Sun 600' in mint condition for £10 and an 'Image 2' industrial/police type one for not much more. Film is dear but it is magical as it creates an object as opposed to just a file. The results have a warmth and immediacy you can't get any other way. I refuse to believe that in a world of many specialist products there is no place for the manufacture of polaroid-type film by a small, low cost, scaled down operation. Agfa may have gone, for example, but its films still live on under its own (for NOS) and Rollei brands for example. I've even used Croatian-sourced ADOX films from the 1950s that are still in production. Polaroid failed and deserved to fail but the best of its technology deserves to live on.
posted by The Salaryman at 7:47 AM on March 13, 2008


So here's the thing: still I LOVE Polaroid. A Polaroid, unlike other pictures (particularly now), is a discreet object. It's an artifact of a moment in time. Actual light reflected off of an actual object and left a mark on the actual piece of paper your are looking at.

Agreed. It's sad to me how many people are completely distanced from how awesome physical photography is. It's convenient to use digital cameras for instant gratification, but the physical process of film gives quality and texture and an immediacy of a moment in time and space that is lost with digital. As a society we're starting to reject the unique and singular for multiples, things that can be copied and discarded readily.
posted by agregoli at 7:50 AM on March 13, 2008 [3 favorites]


(Also, I really hate that so many people here feel the need to denounce people who like Polaroid and trying to be trendy, or hipsters or whatever. So you don't like it, so what? It doesn't make me a trend hound or stupid to like a format in the photography world you don't have time for.)
posted by agregoli at 7:52 AM on March 13, 2008 [2 favorites]


I wrote about this at my day-job blog, NetworkPerformanceDaily.com - I hope you don't mind if I toot my own horn for a second:

However, while digital cameras have filled the need for instant photography more effectively than the Polaroid camera could have done, the analog processes of light + film + developer fluid in a handy-dandy photograph-sized pack found interesting niche industrial uses - industrial uses now impacted by the end of Polaroid's film.

For example, doctors used it in medical imaging. Archeologists used the portability of Polaroid in combination with X-ray photography to examine ruins without disturbing them.

Additionally, Polaroid film is impossible to retouch without there being signs of alteration. This meant that law enforcement and criminal justice relied on them.

In these industries and others, the Polaroid camera filled a niche that will now have to be filled by digital technology; and in many cases, that digital technology will place new demands on the network.

For example, medical imaging requires very high detail; shots on film provided a low-cost way of providing that detail. Equivalent digital technology would produce images that have extremely large file sizes. Instead of passing the photo instantly from doctor to doctor, the files would be transferred from doctor's computer to doctor's computer - or to a photo printer. Since a photo printer of sufficient resolution would be rather expensive, it is likely that a hospital might only have a few of them, networked together. And, of course being forced to move to digital from film, doctors would take the new capabilities of digital to converse with doctors across long distances - that means traffic on the WAN.

posted by BrianBoyko at 8:11 AM on March 13, 2008 [1 favorite]


To follow up on BrianBoyko, when I worked as a cancer lab rat, we ran a lot of polymerase chain reactions (PCR) which show up on gel electrophoresis. We'd take a picture of the gel using a modified Polaroid camera to see what our reactions yielded- for instance, this is what we'd see. I suppose the pictures could have been fed through digital camera, but the polaroids gave an immediate response to our experiments, which is something we needed.
posted by jmd82 at 8:42 AM on March 13, 2008


When I got married we had my mom's old Polaroid camera and a bunch of film ready at the entrance to the reception. We had a friend be sure to get there first, and they snapped a picture of everyone as they arrived, then asked the arriving party to wait 10 seconds, put the developing picture down on the next blank page of our scrapbook-guestbook, then had them sign however they wanted on the page, right next to their picture. My wife and I love it, and are very glad someone passed the idea along to us as we were planning our wedding.

That's my all time favorite (obviously biased) use. I'll be a little sad if the brand name dies, but if anyone is still making the product, I don't suppose it matters that much.
posted by jermsplan at 8:44 AM on March 13, 2008


We keep a loaded polaroid 600 next to our front door in order to take a picture of everyone who walks through the door (an idea I stole from the director John Waters). Then we tack that photo to the wall, and after a few of years of this we have hundreds of photos of our friends, our kids' friends, people we don't see anymore, etc. As the Salaryman notes, it's nothing but magical from start to finish -- there's NOBODY that doesn't like to watch that photo develop, even the plumbers and solicitors get a kick out of it. Then when they see themselves go up on the wall, they become part of a little community. People love to find faces up there they didn't expect ("OMG, I didn't know you know him!") And as the wall gets more and more covered with photos, the kids have a tangible understanding of the good kind of accumulation, and the meaningful kind of wealth -- of friends. None of this happens with digital files.

Ironically, I can see one day a digital camera that has a tiny little printer built into it. The size increases over the typical credit card camera, and neither the photo quality or the print quality is stellar, but it's just FUN!! And therewith another step back into the future.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 8:45 AM on March 13, 2008 [7 favorites]


Ironically, I can see one day a digital camera that has a tiny little printer built into it. The size increases over the typical credit card camera, and neither the photo quality or the print quality is stellar, but it's just FUN!!

And likely to come from Polaroid, as the business has been retooled under new ownership/management with a partial focus on "Instant Mobile Printing."
posted by ericb at 8:56 AM on March 13, 2008


BTW -- Polaroid's "Instant Mobile Printing" is based on ZINK (Zero Ink) technology.
posted by ericb at 9:00 AM on March 13, 2008


There is something awesomely instant and yet permanent about Polaroid photos. They are not as convenient as digital, but there is something more personal about them, perhaps because with digital, you still have to print it. You have the shot, but you can't hand it to someone for them to keep, right then and there.

Plus, there is something just magical about sitting there waiting for the film to develop and for you to see if how the shot came out.

Still, I haven't played with a Polaroid for nearly 20 years, so I could just be fondly remembering them through the lens of the past, and completely forgetting the irritating things about them.
posted by quin at 9:02 AM on March 13, 2008


If nothing else, I worry that the loss of Polaroid film will mean that I will never get to live out a Memento like I've-lost-my-memory-and-need-to-explain-it-to-myself-everyday scenario.
posted by quin at 9:05 AM on March 13, 2008


Shake it, shake it like a polaroid picture ... Just doesn't work with digital.

Taking the advice of hip hop stars could ruin your snapshots
posted by naoko at 9:16 AM on March 13, 2008


I love Polaroid. My girlfriend's a photographer and has a Polaroid back for her Hasselblad. She takes amazing photos with that thing. Actually, although you can barely see it at that scale, my profile photos is one she took with it.
posted by brundlefly at 9:34 AM on March 13, 2008


It's kind of amusing that a number of people are saying "why would you need polaroid when you can digitally print a photo?" As if somehow having a large plastic machine that you have to feed paper and ink and, unless you have spent a lot of money, ultimately prints a flat, mediocre image that fades after a few years, is inherently better than a camera and film that does the same thing using fewer resources, time, and space, and does it right where you are with no peripherals needed. Instamatic pictures aren't that great, but I'd rather have one than a crappy, unsaturated digital print. Peel apart polaroids are really quite lovely. It's hard to beat lenses and chemicals for image reproduction at that price point, using one machine, and in that small amount of time.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:08 AM on March 13, 2008


I bought a couple of the folding pack film cameras (and one non-folding one) last year. I've been using both Polaroid and Fuji film. Sure, you can fake the Polaroid look with digital (just like you can fake Holga/Lomo) but there's something about the process of taking Polaroids that make them a very different experience.

I'll grant you that it probably matters more to the photographer than the viewer.
posted by tommasz at 10:14 AM on March 13, 2008


Can we go back and time and make this retroactive to 1995? Cause then I wouldn't have had to find a stack of Polaroids hidden by my parents in the family safe, and maybe, just maybe, I wouldn't have been scarred for life.

I say burn 'em all.
posted by snickerdoodle at 11:18 AM on March 13, 2008


Also, how are going to take pictures of our business and hide them in a shoebox/leave them in public libraries?
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:38 AM on March 13, 2008 [1 favorite]


Taking the advice of hip hop stars could ruin your snapshots

That. That right there. That's proof that Polaroid is run by idiots. They're handed a free massive advertising campaign, free street-cred, aimed at the perfect demographic, and their response is, "No, don't do that!"
posted by Sys Rq at 11:52 AM on March 13, 2008 [2 favorites]


zsazsa: Unfortunately Fuji's peel-apart instant film doesn't work the same way. I use Polaroid Type 59 to make image transfers: instead of waiting the full development time you peel early and slap the mess on watercolour paper. The dyes from the negative migrate to the paper for a wonderful look.

I've never been able to use Fuji peel-apart for transfers, it doesn't transfer well.

I have a hoard of Type 59 which alas I can no longer find anywhere. Type 79 was supposed to be the replacement, I'd better try it out and if it works, start buying.
posted by phliar at 12:15 PM on March 13, 2008 [1 favorite]


I have some 79 at home I think. I should give it a swing. Still won't reflect your methodology and requirements, though.
posted by Bovine Love at 12:43 PM on March 13, 2008


save the buggy whip!
posted by GuyZero at 1:35 PM on March 13, 2008


That. That right there. That's proof that Polaroid is run by idiots. They're handed a free massive advertising campaign, free street-cred, aimed at the perfect demographic, and their response is, "No, don't do that!"

I can't tell if you're joking or not (and I was being sort of facetious in posting that link in the first place), but I have to say I disagree. I thought it was pretty clear that Polaroid was being sort of tongue-in-cheek in making that statement, and really it just drew more attention to Polaroid than the song would have by itself. A lot of the younger kids who were listening that song may have been so accustomed to digital photography that they didn't realize Polaroid still existed. If anything, it made Polaroid seem relevant again.

/plate of beans
posted by naoko at 2:58 PM on March 13, 2008


Also, how are going to take pictures of our business and hide them in a shoebox/leave them in public libraries?

Pure genius!
posted by dasheekeejones at 4:53 PM on March 13, 2008


If nothing else, I worry that the loss of Polaroid film will mean that I will never get to live out a Memento like I've-lost-my-memory-and-need-to-explain-it-to-myself-everyday scenario.

Yes, Memento's a memento now. Having a margin where you could scribble was a great idea, whatever anyone says. The physicality, the texture and the size were a plus. Not that printing Polaroids didn't feel like feeding money in the back of the machine to pull photos from the front.
posted by ersatz at 5:25 PM on March 13, 2008


The canonical use of Polaroids is to hand them out to Third-World kids. It makes friends, it gives the kids a thrill, and it gains you cooperative subjects for your Real Photography.

I can't imagine trekking in an inkjet printer to hand out digital prints; not yet, anyway. So there's at least one niche that the Death of Polaroid will leave that's going to remain unfilled for a while.
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 9:36 PM on March 13, 2008


I could have single-handidly saved the company if I could find polaroid film the right size for my camera. It spits out business-card sized shots, which is why I got it - so I'd glue peoples businesscards to the back of the shot. I bought the camera in Amsterdam, and then when I moved I began ordering polaroiud film online from all over the place, never once finding the right sized film. ARGH! So frustrating!
posted by dabitch at 5:08 AM on March 15, 2008


Hey, dabitch, is it a Polaroid Mio? That's a lucky camera, in that Fuji makes film for it so it isn't (necessarily) going away. The Fuji branded film is called 'instax'.
posted by dirtdirt at 8:09 AM on March 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


Polaroid's entrepreneurial legacy -- "At the new offices of Zink Imaging Inc. in Bedford, the machine shop is full of equipment that once belonged to Polaroid Corp., and the bookshelves of the start-up's library are lined with ex-Polaroid tomes."
posted by ericb at 12:53 PM on March 16, 2008


« Older "How many brain scientists have the chance to stud...  |  Sandals, socks, and dudes... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments