It happens to all of us lol That right there is called the parallax effect. The view finder isn't what the lens is seeing so when you take a picture it's not what you saw. The effect is also enhanced by how close the object is to the camera. The closer the object is to the camera the greater the parallax effect.
The resurgence of cameras like this reminds me of the movie they made about the teens that found a haunted Polaroid camera that kills people and there was something about how they were talking about the camera and how old it was and that none of them had ever seen a Polaroid camera and all I could think was "instant cameras never went away, there has always been SOMETHING out there that did instant photos". I hate when movies try to do crap like that.
Also fuji's instructions noted that one needs to put the fresh photo's in a dark cover or a dark closet.. and have it develop for about 8 minutes.. otherwise pictures indeed wil get over exposed😉
I love this type of film. I’ve got one that takes Fujifilm, but from Lomography, it’s got folding bellows so it’s got this more portable but very retro vibe.
I just use the viewfinder for getting an idea of how wide the lens is then just try to point the lens directly at what im taking a picture of. Works way better
With the Fujifilm Instax ones you have three types, mini, wide and square, the mini being the common one and I believe there was even a Polaroid one that used instax mini film. What is quite interesting is that whilst the original polaroid went bust Fujifilm never stopped producing Instax film, also Fujifilm were proactive in talking to Polaroid to stop what happened to Kodak's instant offering that got banned from sale (despite, I understand, it using a different process to the Polaroids) and there was a technology sharing agreement that made Polaroid happy. Of course Fujifilm survived the digital revolution by diversifying early and sticking to it, unlike Kodak who thought film would never die.
That last part is not really true. Aside from the fact that film is not entirely dead (actually, Fujifilm is one of the companies that still sells rolls of film), Kodak mainly underestimated how soon and quick the transition to digital would happen and initially considered it too expensive to transition (in the 1970s). They did start to transition to digital in the early 1990s, which didn't make them all that late to the party, but the digital cameras of Japanese competitors were just much cheaper (and often better).
@@bezoekers I think because they never made it into the professional camera system (as in SLR bodies and lenses) market in the film era they had a hard time making profitable products in the digital era. They were probably just boned no matter what, unless they were willing and able to manage a humongous downsize to focus on medical imaging or something actually profitable.
Im surprised i didnt see a comment saying it, but there IS a very retro instant camera that would solve the viewfinder problem. Its just also really bloody expensive to get one! Polaroid SX-70 is an SLR instant film camera, so other than exposure, what you see is what you get! And they still make film for it brand new! Also expensive, but if you're really committed to getting more centered, slightly more intentional instant photos, then by all means, it is likely the best option.
when I was like 9 I went to an uncle's wedding, and they gave a few ppl these bog standard yellow digital cameras while a bunch of other ppl used their fancy baller 90s cameras. the instant photos all came out the best, too bad they were only given to me and the other cousins, half the pics were just of dumb bs.
If you shoot anything close up you gotta take into account that the viewfinder is not actually aligned with the actual lens. Thats why SLRs and mirrorless are such a staple. With those you’re actually looking through the actual lens. Some cameras will even have an off center marking to help account for it. It’s really only a problem within like 1.5 meters
I have the same iMac and I still use it today as my video player for the home theatre, connected optical 5.1 audio and a 50 inch Sony screen to it, I play my old DVD concerts, and movies, too. And it can still play TH-cam with 4GB RAM and a decent core2quad CPU.(I replaced both the CPU and GPU, too.)
Yup, you aren't going to see exactly what the camera sees. You're looking through a little hole just to one side. There are camera designs that could fix that. That's what SLRs were all about... But they're pretty complicated and expensive to produce with mirrors and 5 sided prisms in there. This is the solution which is "good enough" but not perfect. The problem is only really bad, if you are super close to your subject, and It gets better the further away you are
My wife has one that works exactly same as this no apps, just point and shoot and pray it's framed correctly, and uses the same film cartridge. It looks kind of like candy it's called something like instax mini 6 or 8 or something. I keep a photo of me and my wife on a beach somewhere taken with that camera. Just took a look at it now and it's black and white. I do not remember if it's a b/w film or camera has a mode like that or the colors just faded away though. And the film has fujifilm branding at the bottom and says "do not put in mouth" at the top in the back lol
A friend of mine actually got me into both of these types of analog film photography. Spent the summer shooting with an old point-and-shoot and expired 32mm film which did the trick as far as nostalgic photos go, yet I reckon it does lack the instant gratification factor these provide. I’ve got to try a bunch of different Instax machines (the one you want to go for is the now discontinued Mini 90), while I wait for my mom’s old Pentax A3000 SLR to come back from the technician. I’m also combining my tinkering hobby with this newfound passion and am just waiting on some parts to convert a Polaroid Spectra I’ve got off eBay to I-Type film!
So the original Polaroids had even more waste . The ones that took 600 film had pack with 8 films and a battery in each one. You throw away a battery every 8 shots. Polaroid is back in a way now too. the guys at Impossible Project in the Netherlands who were keeping the film stock alive bought back the Polaroid brand/rights or whatever and are making film under Polaroid again. I'm happy I can get 600 films for my SLR 680 readily, but maaaannn I want them to make a rechargeable battery pack or something. I think the colours of the Instax is more accurate (I have one as well since it is much cheaper and less battery waste) but the way the Polaroid makes everything brown hits different.
"it is quintessentially japanese; that is to say there is so much plastic waste" NAH HE GETS IT I'LL BUY A SHIRT FROM JAPAN AND THEY'LL LITERALLY TRIPLE BUBBLE WRAP THE SHIRT... I WISH I WAS KIDDING! at least everything always comes in prestine quality including the box but my shirt isnt going to break in transport guys....
I have same instax mini 40 camera and I can recommend you to buy ND2 filter ( neutral density ), because when shooting outside in sun photo is blown out . Example where I would used that ND2 filter is your photo of tires where sky is non existing. ND2 filter just makes photo darker since it reduce ammount of light going into camera, It's like sunglasses for you camera for places that are too bright.
Film is fun. Well i say this as someone who plays with actual negatives not instant cameras, but instant cameras are for people who don't spend 13 hours a week in a darkroom.
Worth trying out Polaroid!!!! Their modern film is definitely not as accurate colour wise as instax, and is a LOT more finicky and Temperamental, but I’ve found I far prefer shooting it to instax (which again, instax is great for what it is)
0:58 Probably the only time I'll hear Wade say "double A batteries" instead of yelling "AA"
I hope it stays the only time
4:29 he says it another time!
It happens to all of us lol That right there is called the parallax effect. The view finder isn't what the lens is seeing so when you take a picture it's not what you saw. The effect is also enhanced by how close the object is to the camera. The closer the object is to the camera the greater the parallax effect.
The resurgence of cameras like this reminds me of the movie they made about the teens that found a haunted Polaroid camera that kills people and there was something about how they were talking about the camera and how old it was and that none of them had ever seen a Polaroid camera and all I could think was "instant cameras never went away, there has always been SOMETHING out there that did instant photos". I hate when movies try to do crap like that.
That’s an old goosebumps episode! “Say cheese and die!”
@@fischermusicofficial Yep, it was that too!
sometimes crappy photos have the best memories attached to them
We have a different model by fujifilm instax, and it spits out the magazine cover
Also fuji's instructions noted that one needs to put the fresh photo's in a dark cover or a dark closet.. and have it develop for about 8 minutes.. otherwise pictures indeed wil get over exposed😉
But does it Garand ping
@@titanic_monarch796 actually no, would be hilarious though
I love this type of film. I’ve got one that takes Fujifilm, but from Lomography, it’s got folding bellows so it’s got this more portable but very retro vibe.
The broken tv looks like the album cover of an underground rock band
I just use the viewfinder for getting an idea of how wide the lens is then just try to point the lens directly at what im taking a picture of. Works way better
I agree that it's fun - I have a wall of over 300 now from events with friends and trips - and I can't get enough of it
With the Fujifilm Instax ones you have three types, mini, wide and square, the mini being the common one and I believe there was even a Polaroid one that used instax mini film.
What is quite interesting is that whilst the original polaroid went bust Fujifilm never stopped producing Instax film, also Fujifilm were proactive in talking to Polaroid to stop what happened to Kodak's instant offering that got banned from sale (despite, I understand, it using a different process to the Polaroids) and there was a technology sharing agreement that made Polaroid happy.
Of course Fujifilm survived the digital revolution by diversifying early and sticking to it, unlike Kodak who thought film would never die.
That last part is not really true. Aside from the fact that film is not entirely dead (actually, Fujifilm is one of the companies that still sells rolls of film), Kodak mainly underestimated how soon and quick the transition to digital would happen and initially considered it too expensive to transition (in the 1970s). They did start to transition to digital in the early 1990s, which didn't make them all that late to the party, but the digital cameras of Japanese competitors were just much cheaper (and often better).
@@bezoekers I think because they never made it into the professional camera system (as in SLR bodies and lenses) market in the film era they had a hard time making profitable products in the digital era. They were probably just boned no matter what, unless they were willing and able to manage a humongous downsize to focus on medical imaging or something actually profitable.
It makes me chuckle when people love to call film dead - Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford laugh too.
Im surprised i didnt see a comment saying it, but there IS a very retro instant camera that would solve the viewfinder problem. Its just also really bloody expensive to get one! Polaroid SX-70 is an SLR instant film camera, so other than exposure, what you see is what you get! And they still make film for it brand new! Also expensive, but if you're really committed to getting more centered, slightly more intentional instant photos, then by all means, it is likely the best option.
when I was like 9 I went to an uncle's wedding, and they gave a few ppl these bog standard yellow digital cameras while a bunch of other ppl used their fancy baller 90s cameras.
the instant photos all came out the best, too bad they were only given to me and the other cousins, half the pics were just of dumb bs.
If you shoot anything close up you gotta take into account that the viewfinder is not actually aligned with the actual lens. Thats why SLRs and mirrorless are such a staple. With those you’re actually looking through the actual lens. Some cameras will even have an off center marking to help account for it. It’s really only a problem within like 1.5 meters
I have the same iMac and I still use it today as my video player for the home theatre, connected optical 5.1 audio and a 50 inch Sony screen to it, I play my old DVD concerts, and movies, too. And it can still play TH-cam with 4GB RAM and a decent core2quad CPU.(I replaced both the CPU and GPU, too.)
every single picture he takes with this thing could either be an album cover or an ipod touch background
Yup, you aren't going to see exactly what the camera sees.
You're looking through a little hole just to one side. There are camera designs that could fix that. That's what SLRs were all about... But they're pretty complicated and expensive to produce with mirrors and 5 sided prisms in there.
This is the solution which is "good enough" but not perfect.
The problem is only really bad, if you are super close to your subject, and It gets better the further away you are
Dank pods and grainydays cross over when?
Yippee more dank pods❤
I have the fuji film instax square and I am very satisfied with my camera
that quality is better than my 1k dslr camera on auto
My wife has one that works exactly same as this no apps, just point and shoot and pray it's framed correctly, and uses the same film cartridge. It looks kind of like candy it's called something like instax mini 6 or 8 or something. I keep a photo of me and my wife on a beach somewhere taken with that camera. Just took a look at it now and it's black and white. I do not remember if it's a b/w film or camera has a mode like that or the colors just faded away though.
And the film has fujifilm branding at the bottom and says "do not put in mouth" at the top in the back lol
If you want something reliable you could go for a genuine film camera like a Nikon F2 or something, fully mechanical and built like a tank
A friend of mine actually got me into both of these types of analog film photography. Spent the summer shooting with an old point-and-shoot and expired 32mm film which did the trick as far as nostalgic photos go, yet I reckon it does lack the instant gratification factor these provide. I’ve got to try a bunch of different Instax machines (the one you want to go for is the now discontinued Mini 90), while I wait for my mom’s old Pentax A3000 SLR to come back from the technician. I’m also combining my tinkering hobby with this newfound passion and am just waiting on some parts to convert a Polaroid Spectra I’ve got off eBay to I-Type film!
But the problem is, normal films are so much expensive and it's so difficult to find a shop which developes a film
Got the new Poloriod Now+ for Christmas. The fancy one ooo xD only shot one 15$USD set of 8 shots yet. It was great xD
We had one of these in the shop the other day, completely broken.
So the original Polaroids had even more waste . The ones that took 600 film had pack with 8 films and a battery in each one. You throw away a battery every 8 shots. Polaroid is back in a way now too. the guys at Impossible Project in the Netherlands who were keeping the film stock alive bought back the Polaroid brand/rights or whatever and are making film under Polaroid again. I'm happy I can get 600 films for my SLR 680 readily, but maaaannn I want them to make a rechargeable battery pack or something.
I think the colours of the Instax is more accurate (I have one as well since it is much cheaper and less battery waste) but the way the Polaroid makes everything brown hits different.
“Polaroid makes one as well”
…
My SX-70 from 1976 weeps bitter tears of sadness.
Почему нет фото кусачего френка???
I have the same thing omg >
eheh, its just fun indeed
It's 1€ (1.63 AUD) per photo here in Austria (AT).
"it is quintessentially japanese; that is to say there is so much plastic waste" NAH HE GETS IT I'LL BUY A SHIRT FROM JAPAN AND THEY'LL LITERALLY TRIPLE BUBBLE WRAP THE SHIRT... I WISH I WAS KIDDING! at least everything always comes in prestine quality including the box but my shirt isnt going to break in transport guys....
I have same instax mini 40 camera and I can recommend you to buy ND2 filter ( neutral density ), because when shooting outside in sun photo is blown out .
Example where I would used that ND2 filter is your photo of tires where sky is non existing.
ND2 filter just makes photo darker since it reduce ammount of light going into camera, It's like sunglasses for you camera for places that are too bright.
Currently $1 USD is ~$1.50AUD
All of these photos look like artsy indie pop or midwest emo album covers.
Bankbots
Will the face reveal?
Film is fun.
Well i say this as someone who plays with actual negatives not instant cameras, but instant cameras are for people who don't spend 13 hours a week in a darkroom.
:9
ъ.Ъ
What
What
What
What
What
What
I have a Polaroid 300 which is basically a ripoff of the instax mini 8 and runs on instax film, and Polaroid’s own version of instax film.
Worth trying out Polaroid!!!! Their modern film is definitely not as accurate colour wise as instax, and is a LOT more finicky and Temperamental, but I’ve found I far prefer shooting it to instax (which again, instax is great for what it is)