SX-70 vs 600 film: Why the debate you've heard is very likely wrong.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- In today's episode, I dive deep into what might be the oldest (and most tired?) debate in the instant camera community.
SX-70 film. Or 600 film? Which is better?
The answer is more complicated than you might have realized.
If you like this kind of content, let me know in the comments below. What else would you like to see?
Like what I do? Find this video helpful or entertaining?
Feel free to buy me a beer (or two!):
ko-fi.com/thei...
Getting artifacts in the video? For best quality, manually select 1080p quality, as depending on your bandwidth, UA-cam may default to 720p - and UA-cam's 720p compression looks like garbage
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The debate of which film provides better performance - 600 or SX-70 - has raged on for years now.
Die-hard SX-70 fans will swear that SX-70 film will give you everything from 'punchier colors', 'deeper blacks', and 'better contrast'. But is this really true?
I've been shooting instant film for years now. And I take a LOT of photos. It's part of my job when repairing clients cameras to film test them! As a result I've shot a LOT of instant film, from a LOT of different batches - often of the exact same scene over and over again - and I have never found the claim that SX-70 film is 'better' to hold particularly true with any degree of consistency.
In my opinion, there can be as much variation between different batches of the SAME type of film as there is between batches of different films.
Let alone the plethora of other variables that come into play.
This video aims to discuss this topic in great length.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapters:
00:15 - Introduction
03:21 - Can you guess which film is which?
04:35 - Very difficult isn't it. Many factors at play.
06:10 - The films are the same except for the negative, which is tinted
08:10 - Factory Q&A by Ben from In An Instant
09:32 - Relax. I'm not killing off SX-70 film. It's already dead!
10:24 - Reputation of Time Zero
11:50 - Placebo? Time to discuss variables
13:30 - Debunking comparison videos
16:37 - Film batch variations
23:51 - Dark blue skies = underexposed skies
26:10 - Polaroid's L/D recommendation is wrong
33:34 - Temperature and storage
36:12 - ND? Not convinced
37:34 - A slight digression on why SX-70 film is hard to find
39:09 - Sharpness - how the SX-70 lens affects the image
45:32 - So... Does SX-70 film even need to exist now?
46:35 - Relax. SX-70 film isn't going away any time soon.
51:00 - Final thoughts and outro
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Got a Polaroid that needs some love? Hit me up!
/ instantcameraguy
/ theinstantcameraguy
www.theinstant...
Point taken. But the disappearance of SX70 film would FORCE every owner of an SX70 to convert it or much more likely to just stop using it.
If this happened, people would be forced to have their cameras serviced
Which would at the very least stop the forums from being cluttered up by people asking why their 40 year old beat up by camera isnt taking good photos
Sounds like a utopia for me :)
But seriously though. SX-70 film isn't disappearing any time soon. It's already made in small batches. Since it uses the same machinery as 600 it'll always be possible to make it.
You could just continue using them with an ND filter, while keeping the camera original
An informative and sensible video; thank you for making it!
For me personally, the value of SX-70 film is purely for preserving the process of taking SX-70 photos the same way people did half a century ago. I think that is why we all picked up a vintage instant camera: to, above all else, experience that process and have that artistic "struggle" that comes with mastering instant photography. It's not too different from how classical musicians go to great lengths to play a piece of music as close as it would have been performed back when it was first composed. It is an endeavor not without its obstacles; like you said, the exact chemical formulas used for original Polaroid film cannot be manufactured anymore, so we are already one step removed from that. But as long as the vintage photography community remains ardent in its enthusiasm, the spirit of instant photography will live on. The Impossible Project is proof of that.
definitely agree
And really that is the only reason for it to exist in its current state.
17:30 fun thing this code! I’ve been shooting Polaroid since 2016 and have literally two shoe boxes full of them. On winter break I had the urge to organize ALL 1,335 of them. And to my horror only about 700 of them had hand written date stamps on them. But that code really helps you narrow it down because if you managed to write the date on at least one of the 8 photos in a pack, you can roughly approximate when you shot the other 7!
All that to say it took all weekend to do, but was only possible because of the codes they plonk on the back of them!
You have packed so much information in this one I’m going to have to watch it two more times 😬 Careful, don’t give away all the secrets!
Yeah this one was a beast to edit
It's such an involved topic though. Even more to discuss than I included
@@theinstantcameraguy
Lots of bunny trails leading off that one too.
I have to rewatch ..
Another factor is that people using old Polaroids never clean the old plastic lenses, both front and back, from all the oxidation and sometimes even smoke residue from decades of tobacco exposure. They never use PlastX or something akin to it out of some (reasonable) fear of permanently damaging the lens. Microparticle plastic oxidation haze will totally affect the photo quality of exposures by diffusing the light and making everything washed out. It ruins an exposure more than that speck of dust or hair that you can 100% see behind the lens but never gets picked up on the film somehow.
The glass and bellows lenses from the SX-70 line are much more durable and, while not entirely immune from oxidation compared to plastic, essentially are. Especially since for glass to oxidize, your camera would be broken in more ways than one by that point.
I bet if people cleaned the plastic lenses correctly in old box types, this debate would be long settled as it’s basically the same otherwise. And since you’re a refurbisher I have no doubt you actually clean your plastic lenses so your photos look similar repetably 600 box type to SX-70 type.
And I don’t see why this has never been done. Anyone who wants to take this idea, please do so, just give me a few for free and a credit in the byline. take the old plastic lenses of box type Polaroids. They used one shape and size for 99% of the models out there that work with 600 film and then the only other different one is for the Impulse. Make a mold out of them and then use that mold to make glass replacement lenses and polarize it like any other camera lens. You’d get “SX-70” results out of any 600 box camera.
Excellent presentation of the variation from film batch and camera operation. Reminds me when I worked in a large profession photography shop in London in the 70s and most professional photographers would insist on buying bulk quantities of film (most cases colour slide and Polaroid pack film) with the same batch number. They would then do a test roll with each new batch and keep film in cold storage (fridge). This when Kodak and Polaroid had the vast resources to manufacture with very tight tolerances for film production. Incidentally film made for the average consumer took into the fact of film aging over time whilst film made for professionals had a much shorter aging time and thus needed to be kept refrigerated for consistent results. As you rightly point out there are so many variables associated with todays Polaroid picture taking its impressive that one gets the sort of variance given the limited resources of todays Polaroid manufacturing.
Wonderful video as always, glad to see you taking a more active part in the Polaroid community, as I was quite surprised, compared to other hobbies, as to how little *concrete* information there's on a lot of stuff regarding instant photography.
Your channel will surely be a great help for years to come, for those trying to pick up the format without having to rely on dead forums and random anecdotes.
As for the film debate, I started with SX-70 exclusively as I had only an old box camera. But as soon as I tried 600/I-Type O really dont wish to go back, as the quality I feel is objectively better just due to it being much easier to use.
Might be sending that camera to be converted soon haha.
Surprised to see one of my test photos in the mix!
Perhaps there used to be a difference back in the old days, but with the modern emulsions they're practically the same except the ND filter
I agree
And certainly in the past I saw some dramatic variance in batches. But the last few years the film has been similar to the point of being basically identical
600 film works great in an SX-70 camera for long exposure night photography without an ND filter. Some of the shots even had the electric eye taped over
I might've missed if you said this in the video because ADHD, but ejection angle, speed, and roller pressure can noticeably affect images as well.
There is lots more niche stuff that can affect the film that I didn't have time to mention. In what I discussed alone it was over 50 minutes lol
However... Color specifically is not as affected by those things you mentioned
But they can affect developer spread, risk of opacification failure etc
Gonna leave an early comment again, and simply edit it later after I've watched the whole video if I have any other takeaways.
Hah, I must say I wasn't expecting to see those three sample photos from my pre-refurishment SX-70 sonar! For those wondering, mine are the two with the terrible handwriting "WFD" (winter field day, it's an amateur radio event). My third one is the one in the bottom right which is a bit difficult to see but has my two evil geese with a nice lens flare. Ah, and after looking that photo that Jake points out is SX-70 film was also mine.
Once again, you're doing lord Land's work here Jake! I think it's very important to understand the limitations and drawbacks of the modern Polaroid film, while also not unnecessarily limiting ourselves by say, not getting your camera 600 film converted. Originally when I first learned of 600 conversions I kind of went "this is neat, but I'd prefer to keep my camera original".
Obviously I've changed my mind since I have a fully SX-70R modded sonar now, but I also hadn't experienced the limitations of 160 ISO film when I had that opinion. It's limiting, it's finicky, it's downright annoying sometimes. I suppose back in the day there was nothing better, and the film itself was also a lot different back then too. Nowadays I feel like there's no reason not to have your camera 600 converted, especially since (I haven't watched the video yet but I'm assuming) 600 and SX-70 film are basically the same with the modern emulsion.
It's a shame the days of SX-70 Time Zero film are behind us, but let's enjoy what we have now. Stop worrying about minuscule differences with the modern film, and start making priceless memories I say!
The film I’ve gotten produced just now in both January and February has been absolutely fantastic in my opinion. Great colors, blacks and good balance of contrast.
It's like winemaking lol
Different vintages with subtly different characteristics
@@theinstantcameraguy Definitely! With a subtle hint of warmer tones on the January film.
@@theinstantcameraguy The february pack did NOT taste good...
This is an excellent discussion on this topic and so much better informed than the opinions and conjecture many other photographers have. In my experience, all of the best (and worst) shots I've taken have had more to do with the lighting conditions and exposure techniques than the film speed.
While I dont believe that SX-70 will be discontinued the way Spectra was, the fact is that it is difficult to find. Polaroid's US site has had it out of stock for months.
11:30 wait are you saying that's how they got that melt effect or that's similar to how it would look? I love that album
Yup! It's time zero image manipulation
The photo was then reproduced in black and white
But it's a Polaroid
This type of content, for me at least is very valuable, with a pack of film at $30 for 8 shots. So, I shot a few packs using a minolta ambient light meter, using a Polaorid 110B, and later a Polaroid 600 SE. On same cameras, Instx wide looked good, as did FP-100C, and SX-70 600 speed film for most of the exposures with it. The SX-70 camera, each pack shot in all three cameras (switching in a dark room). shots varied of course, but for which variable I can't say. However a decent pack of film, with a competent SX-70 overhaul, did look more than acceptable in the SX-70 compared to the 110B and 6060 SE, and manual light meter. The only thing I learned is how to tell if the electric eye is crusty and the shutter blades are dragging in the same SX-70 camera. See, then if you can get the L/D wheel over far enough.
It is actually quite remarkable that Polaroid (new) is at the point where they are now. Looking at the first Impossible Project formulas, well 😅
100%
Compare the new film to a decade ago... Not even close!
It would be nice if Polaroid actually made different emulsions like time zero.
We'd all love to see it
Do you know why time zero film no longer exist? Is it bacause recipe has been lost, or it use ingredients forbidden in Netherlands? Or something else?
Chemicals aren't available anymore - environmental reasons etc most likely
I go into this in the video
@@theinstantcameraguyalso, they have stopped making it in 2005 or so. So even if the chemicals are not forbidden, I don’t know, the original suppliers are probably no longer making that either. The mix is highly specific and, well, if nobody else buys them, why bother.
@@thomasa.243 Time Zero was discontinued because of Hurricane Katrina. DuPont manufactured extremely pure Titanium Dioxide in a factory that the hurricane destroyed - Polaroid was the only significant buyer of it, and nowhere else in the world could make it or justify the cost to create machinery to make it.
First of all: just discovered your channel and I love it, thanks for making such great and clear video’s about these amazing camera’s. I was also wondering: what’s your opinion on using an ND filter on a 600 cartridge and using it in an SX-70? Does it degrade the quality of the image? Also, shouldn’t it be possible to use 600 film in an SX-70 by simply turning the compensation dial completely to the dark side? Or won’t that compensate for 2 stops? Thank you!
@@martijnspitters142
I believe I cover that subject in this video, but if you want more specific info watch the video i did titled "the ultimate guide to I-type adapters" and the one I did on how to shoot "SX-70 film in a 600 modded camera"
In my opinion, filters work fine, but they are fiddly, and most importantly - defeat the main advantage you get from 600 film, which is the higher ISO
The LD wheel is only 1.5 stops side to side. Your suggested method would kinda work, but results would still likely be prone to overexposing and you'd lose exposure compensation
Honestly, modern polaroid film is very close to og time zero. Albeit, with lower dynamics range
Such a cool channel! Thank you so much!
Case closed. Very informative and thoughtful video on Polaroid film. Thank you.
I saw that polaroid/Ben video when it came out and was like shit... no point buying any sx70 film from here on.. the same film for more money.. no thanks
I'd suspected it for a while
When it was confirmed I felt so vindicated lol
I am pretty sure they are both the same price, right?
@@patrickjclarke technically sx-70 and 600 are the same price online.
But in physical stores sx-70 film is often more expensive, or unable to be purchased in multi packs, this making it more expensive per shot
And itype film is certainly cheaper
I’d be interested to know if the monochrome is the exact same too or if it actually has finer grain as they say on their own page.
This I have no idea
It would be easy to tell though, by comparing the raw negatives. If one looks dark and the other light, we could assume a tinted negative
From what I know from talking to them, the BW neg is different than the color, but not vastly. And the new lower contrast version, I wish I could tell you how it’s done but I’ve been sworn to secrecy.
@@theinstantcameraguyoh, but yeah SX70 and 600 BW is the same neg
Great analysis! So does this mean that Polaroids claim of "finer grain" (from the store page ) is false?
I believe so
At least in terms of current colour film
How can you tell the difference between a SX-70 print vs 600 print?
@@Zetaphotography watch the video and you'll find out
It's pretty much impossible with modern film
The difference between batches is not just that they're “tweaking” their emulsion every month. Making 100% identical emulsions is quite hard and often requires that you discard an entire batch of expensive goop. In the old days, polaroid would dump a batch if it was more than 1 or 2 percent off from optimal, but today for economic reasons that standard is set much lower.
The frustrating thing about making emulsions is that even if your mix is 100% identical, the result might come out different from batch to batch.
My personal theory is that a few years ago the company went from idealist to a more corporate mindset, and they greatly reduced r&d efforts, saying “it's not perfect but good enough that people will buy it”.
This is a very valid point too
The chemistry is very complicated
@@theinstantcameraguy oh yes, immensely. And a tub of emulsion is far more expensive than people realize.
As small as the company is now, they just can't afford to throw tens of thousands of euros down the drain.
I supported Impossible strongly from day one but I don't think we'll get the original polaroid quality back anytime soon.
Appreciate you giving an unusually well rounded and balanced analysis 👍
Lmao "How did you even access this? I'm saving a few videos to upload while I'm in Japan". I went to your playlists on your page and hit your reviews and comparisons playlist and there it was... It even said unlisted underneath it.
Yeah it would appear that unlisted videos are still available to the public if I put them in a playlist
They are all set to private now so I can drip them out one by one
How's 600 film in bright sunlight? I'd like to convert the camera but im concerned the camera can't handle the bright sun with an f8 aperture and max shutter speed of 175.
@@skytrooper506 the idea that it has a maximum 1/175th shutter speed is not accurate. It's a gross over simplification and I'm not sure where those numbers came from
Watch my video on the SX70r PCB for an idea of how the shutter works
@@theinstantcameraguy thanks!
Great video
Ugh I wish they wouldn’t have been so lazy. I want a true 160 film. The original sx70 film was truly 100ISO.. they could do that too, impossible is just running out of Europe and it’s too expensive ugh. I wish they would bring time zero back :(
Will we ever get 10 pics per pack or is that no longer a possibility?
I believe we will never see 10 packs again. Take the latest i-Type cameras for example: the shots remaining indicator is 8 led lights so there is no way they can change that now. If they can't fit more prints in an i-Type cartridge, there's no way they will fit more in a SX-70 or 600 cartridge with a battery. The materials and chemicals that Polaroid uses are just thicker than they were before the impossible project.
It is absolutely possible, but no. We wont see 10 shots again. People have accepted 8 shot packs so why would they give us 25% extra and spend money on a thinner battery.
There is zero reason why i type shouldnt have 10 shots, other than the fact that people happily buy them with 8 shot.
Just to clarify, I don't think the battery is what is too thick, my understanding is that the film material and chemistry since the Impossible Project makes each print marginally thicker (which contributed to their Spectra film problems) but you are 100% correct @MrLennart1976. I like to slide in two extra dark slides on a new pack just so the film counter is correct on my SX-70 Sonar. Haha
The collor behind the film, act like in the car paint.... if you want that the collor pop out you do silver primer, but if you want darker collors you made the prime black. The diferences comes from the reflextion on the light on the photo that you see....The development of both are the same, just the back of the picture is colored diferent. But said that, will not the exposure will be the same or im all worng.... cause in the car paing, the light goes tru all the layes of the paint shash in the primer them go back to your eyes making change in the collor that you see.....the first llayer is like the pigment of the photo, the back or brow collor are there even after the photo development, like an LCD works, the lcd goes red,but the collor of the backlight change the red TONE. This is why sx-70 have a tru black ,and the 600 cant do that.
I think this is certainly a valid explanation for some scenarios
Depending on the batch it still varies a lot though but certainly a dark brown base instead of brown might help a bit.
One could possibly experiment with this using a transparency technique
woohoo!