So basically Instagram? I really wanted to like this, but two things bugged me: first, the editing with all that stuttering and shit. Second, the fact that in the end it is just another picture that looks old but really isn't. This whole instagram trend to make pictures look shitty on-purpose needs to die. Purposely making a picture look bad misses the point entirely IMO. I know, I know, it's art and people can do what they feel, but I'm just saying that it feels pretentious like 100,000 douchey hipsters with iPhones taking pictures of powerlines through crappy filters to make them look washed out... just saying.

And the fact, they spent more time setting up the camera than anything.
They didn't show the photo shoot and then they out of an entire box of film, they took one photo - that's all we get to see.

Pretty much wasted our time in makeing the video.

more like *#latergram

This is probably the first time in history people want older crappier technology. I can't imagine anyone in the 1970s wanting to take pictures with technology from the 1930s.

Post-post-post-postmodernism

*music

Adding video to channels (Music) - requested by ant.

related= http://videosift.com/video/Eskmo-Cloudlight

this is hardly the first time in history. art has always looked both to new and old technology and techniques and has always looked to push the edges of both, which is exactly what this is. and people DEFINITELY took pictures in the 70s with technology from the 30s.

no, it's the opposite of instagram. it's using very old, esoteric, and volatile materials and experimenting to discover results. instagram deals with known methods and known and [only] repeatable results that imitate cheap film cameras from the 60s and 70s. this is an expensive camera, probably hard to find and expensive film, which may or may not work, giving completely unknown results. saying this is just like instagram is like saying that a PT cruiser is just like chrysler airflow or that a van gogh poster is just like the original painting: you're confusing the cheap imitation for the original. it's exactly like confusing a low res, digital instagram shot with an extremely high res, large format, film photo done with 100 year old camera.

saying this is "making a picture look bad misses the point entire" in fact, misses the point entirely. it misses the point of art, it misses the point of experimentation, and it's an extremely narrow and purely utilitarian understanding of a rarely utilitarian process.

also, maybe you should check out the whole story before dismissing this as being part of a cheap "fad".

http://www.expired-instants.com/stories/1978-10-polacolor2-808.html

The result is a faint image of a gorgeous woman captured in brown sludge. The pictures are somewhat interesting, but I agree that the video is just irritating.

http://expired-instants.com/photos/1978-10-polacolor2-808.html

damned plebs...

*photo

Also, was that a laminating machine that he used to spread the developer?

it's a Polaroid Land Processor according to the website.