When I made the statement that Polaroid “worked with The Impossible Project to help the film come back to the light of day” I didn’t mean to imply that they’ve been a major player in the effort, because, as you’ve pointed out, they certainly haven’t. Perhaps I’m giving Polaroid more credit than they deserve in this, but I’m willing to give them a little break for the fact they could have just sold the whole operation off as scrap and headed for the exits, which as I understand, is pretty much what they’ve done with their other facilities and seems to have been their intent with Enschede before Mr. Kaps stepped in and doggedly saved it. Additionally, I would also expect there might be some intellectual property and/or branding and trade name issues that Polaroid Corporation had to accommodate, but this is speculation on my part.

The deeper this seems to get and the more this story starts to boil as it’s done this week, the more my respect for The Impossible Project and what they have accomplished grows.

Again, excellent clarification and I very much appreciate your comments.

Loved this line warning Fuji… “If you ever see Polaroid coming up the walk with something that looks like a cross between a woman and a peacock, lock the doors.”

I think T.I.P. has been incredible in their marketing of the brand and, especially, the store. They’re even kind enough to sell their POGO digital printer!

Why on earth Polaroid decided to completely abandon ship on instant films is beyond me. Now they’re realizing what a good thing they lost.

Larry – I wanted to go ahead and get your comment up. While I appreciate your response, I do have some responses for you, but I won’t be able to get them up until later.

Larry – I’m back at the real computer now and can properly address your comments.

First, I’m acutely aware that “Dr. Land’s company … has nearly nothing to do with the Polaroid of today, except of course the name.” I must not have been clear in communicating that, but that’s really pretty much the overarching issue of the entire post. It isn’t anything like Dr. Land’s company and it hasn’t been for a long time. Times change, companies change, consumer needs change, and Polaroid wanted out of the instant analog camera/film market and they got out. Now a very short time later they want back in. This makes me perk up and pay attention because it just doesn’t seem to make sense. Typically companies move forward with business decisions and don’t flip-flop, especially with a decision as significant as this. When they do, it doesn’t always end up well for them in the long run.

Second, as to my “scattered name-mangling throughout the post” being “childish”, well we might just have to let that go as a matter of creative differences. That being said, I did strike a couple of the instances of “name-mangling” because I felt like it interrupted the flow a bit, but let’s face it, she calls herself Lady Gaga. I mean come on. Really?

(Edited to add… The “name-mangling” to which is referred here and which I’ve since edited in the original post was in no part a “mangling” of the moniker Gaga, but was in reference to some various liberties, none of which were indecent, that I took with the strange and self-bestowed title of Lady. …end edit)

Thanks again for the comments and if you get your post up, please let me know. I’d be more than interested to read a differing view on the subject.

That said, I do have two major issues with this post. First, you’ve completely skimmed over the fact that Dr. Land’s company – “an analog company in a digital world ” – has nearly nothing to do with the Polaroid of today, except of course the name. I almost cried when I saw some “Polaroid” light bulbs in a local closeout store. The company that’s at CES today is just not the same as the one that gave us the SX-70. I think it’s an important distinction. You might as well complain that the “Bell + Howell Electromagnetic Ultrasonic Pest Repeller” doesn’t have the build quality and optics of the B+H overhead projector that your 3rd grade math teacher used.

Secondly, while I’m no fan of Lady Gaga either, the scattered name-mangling throughout the post is childish and detracts from your message. Just like when I come across a Slashdot comment using “Windoze” or “Micro$oft”, it immediately makes me think the message isn’t all that important.