First up: The Polaprinter GL10, a rechargeable instant printer that uses ZINK paper and lets you print over Bluetooth or USB from cellphones, cameras or laptops. It’s essentially an upgrade of Polaroid’s existing PoGo Mobile Instant Printer, but with better print quality, stylish design and a custom app that lets you tweak photos before printing them.
Next is the Polaroid GL30, which again is re-vamped take on their existing PoGo Instant Camera, but this time the device has been built with a cool retro-looking wedge form factor and doubles as a digital photo frame when it is stood on its lens-end.
The piece-de-resistance however is the Polarez GL20, a curious hybrid of sunglasses, camera and digital photo frame that lets the wearer snap photos of their environment and immediately display the resulting pics on the built-in forward-facing OLED displays. Of the three devices that make up this new Grey Label line, none bears the stamp of the Haus of Gaga more than these babies. Will they sell? Perhaps. But not in any quantities that will be significant. Instead, consider GL20 to be marketing tool – a device that is very Gaga-esque and will no doubt get people talking and create positive buzz for Polaroid, but I think it will stop there. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if the GL20s make an appearance in Lady Gaga’s next music video.
“That’s right – when I was your age, phones were stuck to the wall and you had to dial phone numbers using this big, er, dial!”
It’s endless fun. One of my favourites is reminding them that there was a time when screaming “let me see!” after someone takes a photo simply wasn’t an option.
Because my kids live with a tech editor father, they aren’t surprised when I come home with yet another shiny new gadget. You might even say they’re blasé about it. But when I brought home my review copy of Fujifilm’s Instax Mini 7s, I knew I held in my possession the power to amaze. Not because the Instax Mini is the latest and greatest, but precisely because it isn’t.
I sat down at the dining room table and pulled the chunky and somewhat bulbous-looking camera from my bag and beckoned both children to come closer. They’re so used to having a camera in their faces (I confess to being an unrelenting documentarian of our family in both photo and video) that they both instantly pulled their usual photo poses: My daughter dutifully smiled angelically while my son managed to contort his features into a face that, well, kind of makes you want to call a doctor.
Just as instantly, I snapped the photo. Then the unthinkable happened. Instead of that frozen moment in time appearing on a screen on the back of the camera, a small rectangular document emerged from the top.
The double-take that both kids executed was priceless. I wish I had had the presence of mind to capture it on video.
30 years ago, this was the quintessential Polaroid moment. Back then, everyone who witnessed what had just happened knew what came next: you grab the white-and-black flexible card and shake it in the air (to this day I still don’t know why we did this) and then wait – often impatiently – for the photo to emerge from the layers of chemicals embedded in the print.
But to a child who has never been photographed with anything other than digital technology, this was a new experience. Realizing I had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do a “magic trick”, I asked the kids to step closer, placed the freshly snapped print on the table and proceeded to wave my hand mystically in the air over it. A few nonsensical incantations later and the image appeared.
My daughter rewarded my efforts with a giggle while my son, who was given a photo printer for Christmas this year, said “Cool, make me one too!” He was nonplussed to learn that not only was there no digitally-preserved version of the photo; there was no way to print any more – unless we took the same photo again.
Which brings us to the real question: Why, in this age of digital photography, when we never have to live with a photo that isn’t to our liking, or spend money printing an image we might not want to keep, would we want to bring back the instant-print cameras of days gone by?
The answer is simple: It’s still fun after all these years.
While the uses for an instant camera like the Instax Mini and it’s bigger brother the Instax 210, are limited only by the imagination, parties are the most obvious time to pull one of these cameras out and start shooting.
The memories can be shared immediately and unlike digital photos which can make their way onto the web with ridiculous ease, instant photos tend to stay in the real world where they are enjoyed by a select few – which is kind of the point.
The Instax Mini 7s, ($80.99 at Amazon.ca) when compared to modern point-and-shoots, is laughably big, and possessed of so few buttons and settings you’re tempted to start looking for hidden hatches. Other than the shutter-release button, there is only a small selector switch that lets you choose between 4 shooting modes including indoor, outdoor-cloudy, outdoor-sunny and outdoor-really-sunny. There isn’t even a power button – this is accomplished by pulling the lens out manually from its retracted/closed position.
The built-in flash fires for every shot, regardless of the shooting mode. When indoors, it’s a necessity but like most built-in flashes, its range maxes out at about 4 feet.
The prints are a credit-card sized 3.5”x2” with a generous white border that is slightly thicker on one side – just like the classic Polaroid prints you remember. Even the colours and skin-tones plus deep depth of field that kind of flattens the image all feels just like the original. You buy them in 10-print cartridges – which are going for $10 on Amazon.ca.
One thing that you will quickly find if you do a little googling, is that Polaroid themselves markets a camera in the U.S. called the ‘300’, which as far as I’ve been able tell, is a total clone of the Fujifilm Instax Mini 7s. When I called Fujifilm to ask what the story was, they kept the answer short and a little mysterious: Yes, Polaroid and Fujifilm have a partnership but the details are under wraps. Why the cloak and dagger? Who knows. My guess is that they want to keep the two brands very separate, to the point where they don’t sell the two cameras in the same market. Polaroid owns the U.S. while Fujifilm seems to be everywhere else.
On this note, Fujifilm claims that the Polaroid 300 film will not work in the Fujifilm Instax Mini 7s. But I find that highly unlikely. If you ever find yourself in the U.S. with your Instax and in need of film, I say go ahead and pick up the Polaroid product. It’s probably made my Fujifilm anyway. I mean look at the cameras – they’re identical.
Get retro and have some fun. It’s what the Instax was made for.
When the digital era arrived and it became painfully clear to established photography companies that they would have to adapt or perish, many of them met the challenge head-on and not only adapted, but became the innovators and leaders. Nikon, Canon, Kodak, FujiFilm, Olympus and others who forged their reputations in the analog past are now seeing surging demand for their digital products.
Polaroid, however, ended up starting the digital age with one hand already tied behind its back. Their instant line of cameras and film were already relegated to a small and ever-shrinking market that had largely turned to a new generation of smaller and easier to use 35mm and APS format cameras. In the end, the instant business wasn’t enough to keep it afloat and the company declared bankruptcy in 2001. The brand however, was kept alive – albeit on life-support – and has traveled a bumpy road to recovery ever since.
Most Canadians’ experience with the Polaroid brand over the last 10 years has been in the form of inexpensive and oddly unrelated products such as portable DVD players, low-end digital cameras and a few small-screen-size LCD TVs. They were typically found a retailers that do not make consumer electronics their mainstay – stores like Canadian Tire, Zellers and Shoppers Drug Mart. Tech review giants like CNET barely paid any attention to these products and consumer reactions could only be described as tepid.
Then, in 2008, the company decided to finally end its relationship with the tiny but intensely loyal group of customers who still used their instant line of cameras: they officially discontinued their instant film production. Even those of us who did not own one of their instant cameras felt a pang of nostalgia at the thought that the iconic white-bordered photos would no longer be a part of our culture.
But signs of a true rebirth have been emerging at Polaroid for a few years. At the 2008 CES, Polaroid set up an elaborate booth to showcase a home media serving platform, known as Freescape that showed a great deal of promise. This was a brand new direction for the company, one that took them from the image creation business into the image (and other media) management, display and sharing business. Though not fully realized, the collection of TVs, set-top boxes and connected digital photo frames possessed a slick user interface and generous support for an array of digital file formats. Freescape never saw the light of day however, and was completely absent from Polaroid’s booth in 2009.
But the 2009 show signaled a return to the instant business for Polaroid, as they debuted a totally new digital camera with a built-in ZINK photo printer. ZINK stands for Zero-Ink, a technology that embeds the colour as crystals on the surface of the print paper, instead of relying on ink cartridges. It’s the digital equivalent of their original instant cameras.
Now, in 2010, this Polaroid for the digital age – known as the PoGo – is ready for the market and is joined by a larger format camera – the 3″x4″ Instant Camera and a dedicated 3″x4″ instant printer, all of which use the same ZINK technology. Though the idea of having a digital camera and printer in one product is intriguing, it’s possible this may be a case of too little, too late, as the market appears to have shifted from wanting instant memories on paper, to wanting instantly-shared memories on social network sites like Facebook.
And in a surprise move that seemingly reverses their earlier decision to trash the instant film business, Polaroid has announced that they will be releasing a redesigned version of their classic OneStep camera, a model they are calling the PIC 1000. Simultaneously, they are partnering with a company called The Impossible Project, to bring back their original PolaroidColor 600 Instant Film, which will work with both the original OneStep and the new PIC 1000.
However neither of these announcements seems to have made as much of an impact on the media coverage of CES as Polaroid’s revelation that they are partnering with pop sensation Lady Gaga, who will become a creative director and “inventor” of new products. It’s still very unclear exactly what Lady Gaga’s contribution will be, beyond the obvious loan of her quirky, fashion-forward image. The press release only offers us a flavour of what’s to come:
“I am so proud to announce my new partnership with Polaroid as the creative director and inventor of specialty projects,” said Lady Gaga. “The Haus of Gaga has been developing prototypes in the vein of fashion/technology/photography innovation–blending the iconic history of Polaroid and instant film with the digital era–and we are excited to collaborate on these ventures with the Polaroid brand. Lifestyle, music, art, fashion: I am so excited to extend myself behind the scenes as a designer, and to as my father puts it–finally, have a real job.”
There’s no denying that Lady Gaga has unique style all her own, and that her prodigious output of catchy dance/pop songs has created a large and enthusiastic fan base. But can this larger-than-life personality breathe new life into a company that until last year was struggling to figure out what it wanted to be in the 21st century? My guess is that rather than usher in a new line of ground-breaking products, Gaga’s influence will primarily be felt at the retail level where you will see her face er, faces, used to add a much needed dash of sexiness and style to an otherwise bland and forgettable product line up.
Interestingly, Polaroid wasn’t the only consumer electronics brand tying itseld to a music mega-star. In a statement today, LCD TV manufacturer VIZIO – a company best known for their inexpensive yet decent quality HDTVs – has announced that they too have a new creative director: Beyoncé Knowles – Carter. It’s a three-year deal which:
“… grants name and likeness rights to VIZIO for North American advertising, product packaging, web, promotions, public relations and point of sale materials. The partnership will also allow Knowles to participate in the design and performance characteristics of new products from VIZIO’s ever-expanding line of audio, visual and web-enabled products.”
While I get that fans of these stars will be much more likely to buy products that they think their idols have had a hand in designing, it has the opposite effect for me. I find myself wondering if the money spent renting star-power wouldn’t be better invested in the R&D necessary to create genuinely compelling products. But as I am so often reminded by my friends in the product management business, clever marketing that speaks to your target audience is at least, if not more important to the success of your product than actually having a great product.
What’s your take? Is Lady Gaga’s involvement with Polaroid a savvy move that, regardless of actual product design, will have a beneficial impact? Or is it desperate attempt to hitch their wagon to a rising star in the hopes that she will pull the company along with her on her upward journey?