Polaroid is ceasing it's film production by 2009. It saddens me because they were so prominent here though there are other companies making instant film including Fuji, whose film I happen to like (works well in the Lomo Fisheye.) The look of a Polaroid is great. I have actually downloaded a wonderful set of Polaroid actions for Photoshop that I thought worked pretty well:
But you guys are probably like me, where digital just won't do. My main desire to continue shooting instant film revolves around three things:
1. The unique picture.
2. The lack of ctrl- Z.
3. The sniper hunt.
Photography is easy to reproduce, especially with printer technology and internet. Does a photo in which there is only one (like the Highlander) have a different meaning? I think so. Not a better or worse, just a different.
I love undos, I think being able to dive into the deep end knowing nothing's permanent is good, but I also like working with more at stake form time to time.
Lastly, the expense, the number of available shots, and the instantaneous print all contribute to the way a scene is looked at, interpreted, and photographed. Again, I'm not saying the "I have a 5 gig memory card and I can just spray across a scene with shots until I get one right like a machine gun" method doesn't have validity. I just want to keep all my options open.
Digital photography has done wonders for my work, especially in the realm of color photography (which btw, was looked down upon when it first came out the same way a lot of digital photos are looked down on today.) The Internet allowed artists to put their fate in their own hands instead of relying on a brick and mortar gallery. Most experts agree that digital is the way of commercial photography, but film is still viable for fine art (how I feel.) I will probably always still shoot in film because of the tangibility and mechanicalness of the process, that's one of the things I am drawn to. Digital is the way the world seems to be headed.
Here are two more articles on the matter: