We used type 53 at school when we learn to use 4x5 cameras. I haven't a clue how they are teaching the class now.

Now you thank god, know what you're talking about, unlike all the other imbeciles commenting in this forum.

It's about two or three dollars a shot now.

There is the lomography aspect to the polaroid but that is not what the Dutch are making. They are making polaroids for film backs, for professionals, and not for shooting fun candid images of friends. Fuji can take that role.

They have the Pogo: http://www.polaroid.com/global/detail.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524441769154&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302037126&bmUID=1243376081801&bmLocale=en_US Camera and printer in one. Plus the printer uses no ink. I have no idea how that works, but apparently it does.

It's not retarded when it has a real use in the professional business of photography. Read my post above and maybe you'll be enlightened. Only 50% of professional photographers work completely in digital. 25% completely in film and the other quarter use a mix. Shooting in film that has a higher resolution than any $50,000 camera and then scanning it to create amazing digital prints. I bet before they shoot that expensive sheet of film, they use a polaroid to check the exposure so they don't screw up. Unless you're a photographer, I think you have no business talking in this thread.

Polaroid has already made a digital camera that has a built in printer called a pogo, that will do that exact thing for you. Kodak can't license their formula for instant film because of the lawsuits set by polaroid all those years ago. The men in Holland are trying to create a completely new, different and cheaper version. You can find out all about it at theimpossibleproject.com ... and it's Ilford/Harmon that's helping out

Clearly my child, you are not a photographer, at least not a professional one with a decent amount of experience in the business of photography. Polaroids have far more advantage than your little mind can understand. When a photographer is shooting with 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 or 11x14 film all of which have a far superior quality level than any digital, no matter how expensive, on the market, that photographer does not want to waste the film by shooting it with the wrong exposure. This is where the polaroid film back came in. It would make a perfect cheap test shot to make sure you weren't wasting that $10 sheet of film. After developing the film and finding out it's not worth printing it's most likely far too late to re-shoot and you just lost your client and all the money you invested in your job. The cheap plastic cameras that is usually associated with polaroid were just fun, which can simply be replaced with digital. However, it's professional uses have been lost, because the fuji models of instant film have not been able to reproduce the quality of the polaroid. The cameras made the pictures bad. Find an SX-70 or use a 4x5 view camera with a film back and see how beautiful that shot can be. You, Mr. Admodieus haven't got a clue what you are talking about and shouldn't have spoken in the first place.