1972 was a banner year for inventiveness, consumer-product-wise. That year, Mr. Coffee was born. The coffeemaker, which forever changed the way the morning brew was prepared, will no doubt rate its own future mention here.
The other big release that year was the Polaroid SX-70.
Polaroid had long ago made its name with instant photography. They released their first peel-and-see camera in 1948, just in time for our fathers, getting more prosperous by the day, to preserve images of their lovely kids (that would be US!). By 1965, they released the affordable Swinger, which many Boomers made their first camera purchase.
But let's face it: peeling off the top layer after exactly the right number of seconds was, well, a pain. While still preferable to waiting days for pictures to get developed, we tired of having to carry waste disposal means with us wherever we went. And that emulsion was seriously nasty, sticky stuff if you happened to touch it.
Thus, the world was overjoyed when the SX-70 was released, a camera that spit out a picture that would magically develop right before your very eyes! And no nasty paper to throw away!
The SX-70 was a true SLR, i.e. you viewed the subject through the same lens that would record its image. This was sophisticated stuff for our parents, who might have owned Kodak Brownies that had primitive viewfinders that had to be used by looking down at the top of the camera. This feature was previously only available on expensive Hasselblads, Nikons, and the like.
Not only that, but its design was amazing. Polaroid had long produced cameras that would fold down to a smaller size for transportation between shots, but they went the extra mile with the SX-70.
The camera would collapse in upon itself to form a small rectangular box that would fit in the smallest purse. It wasn't quite pocket-sized, but was a lot of fun for a kid to open and close. Now it's a camera, now it's a little box.
It was a beautiful piece of art. Its metal was brushed chrome, it also featured genuine leather. Oh, and the camera had another groundbreaking feature: it focused itself! Though the initial model was a manually-focused device, it was soon released with sonar-activated auto-focus. Cool beans! Later on, Polaroid would sell the One-Step, which didn't collapse and was made largely of plastic, to those of us who were financially challenged. That way we could enjoy the power of an autofocusing instant camera (albeit not an SLR) without the pain of the SX-70's steep price.
Such a sophisticated instrument called for sophisticated accessories. Thus, you could purchase a telephoto adapter, a macro adapter, a self-timer, and external flashes (the original used a flash bar). It was possible to take some seriously detailed photos with the camera's one-to-one ratio of image to film, though limited to 3.1 x 3.1 inches in size.
Experimenters soon learned that you could get quite artistic with SX-70 images. Check out the Van Gogh-influenced Chevy Nova to the right (click to enlarge). It was produced by manipulating the image within minutes of its development. You could fold, spindle, and mutilate the prints into unique creations. Of course, you could also screw them up pretty good if you weren't careful.
The SX-70 was a high flyer for the rest of the decade. The popularity of its more inexpensive instant cameras caused the company to discontinue the original SX-70 in 1981 (They also had instant-picture competition from Kodak, but squashed that with a victorious 1986 patent lawsuit). This was a cause of worry for its owners, as fear of no more film became a threat. However, Polaroid continued to manufacture SX-70 film until 2005. And even then, owners were able to hack their cameras to use 600 film. Unfortunately, Polaroid has ceased the manufacturing of all films for cameras of the 70's and 80's, but check out this SX-70 hack site, which shows that the inventive spirit of the camera's fans will triumph over the mere lack of original accessories.
The digital camera revolution has forced camera companies to adapt or die. Kodak is doing great. Polaroid failed to change their business model in a timely manner. Hence, they have had a series of bankruptcies since 2001, but the company appears to still be going fairly strongly. Their website shows a diverse number of products, including digital cameras, "retro" film cameras, and some decidedly non-photographic items.
I hope they turn a profit. A world without the Polaroid brand name would be a little sadder. Any company cool enough to come up with the Swinger and the SX-70 deserves to survive.
Comments (6)
I tend to think of The Swinger in the following equation in terms of handiness and image quality.
The Swinger is to the SX-70,as todays cell phone camera is to a digital camera.
Posted by NCeddie | July 11, 2010 12:05 PM
Posted on July 11, 2010 12:05
Polaroids were in use by the City of Portland (ME) in the 70s and my father was a building inspector for the city and used Polaroids all the time on the job and a few times home as well.
They certainly made their mark. Quick response and "privacy" for some. But my gripe is the picture quality/resolution. Compared with film, it was dull. But it was a step in the evolution of photography. But digital cameras are so much better now.
As I see it, our "culture" did not last long. It was in great transition but we did not know it at the time. we went from WWII tech to Cold War escalated tech development and soon the civilian world started to change as well. The 80s really started some big changes, one by one. Microwaves came in mid 70s but got common and cheaper in the 80s. Cable TV came along. But the personal computer (Timex Sinclair and all to follow) really started something. but again, the 80s got it really going.
So to me, the 50s-70s was really distinctive and the Polaroid was certainly a part of it.
Posted by Scott I | July 11, 2010 4:46 PM
Posted on July 11, 2010 16:46
We had our old box camera for all the years I was growing up (and goodness knows how many years it had been in the family before I came along). I don't think we ever did get a poloroid, but it seemed to 'cheapen' photos. Not that they cost less, but with no negatives, they were more ephemeral. Something for the moment, and not for a long-term keepsake. With negatives, we could make extra copies to send to distant family, and each of the family branches represented in the photo could have their copy. Photos would even be developed with three copies on the same card, one big one (the actual 'photo') for our own album, and two smaller 'snapshots' to mail off to relatives.
And do write about coffee soon. Not Mr.Coffee, but the delightful percolators that it replaced. Last time we replaced a coffee-maker here, we decided to get a perc for the sound, but had to search to find one. And then I actually cried when I found out my deafness has gotten so severe I couldn't hear it. I loved that sound, and the music it and 'popcorn' inspired.
Posted by OwenKL | July 11, 2010 5:12 PM
Posted on July 11, 2010 17:12
Wow, I had forgotten that the SX70 came so early.
I think it was Edwin Land, Mister Polaroid himself, who said: "Sooner or later someone is going to make your product obsolete. Make sure it's you."
Posted by Anton Sherwood | August 8, 2010 10:33 PM
Posted on August 8, 2010 22:33
Just wanted to say as a Kodak shareholder, contrary to the author's claim, Kodak is most certainly NOT doing great, nor has it been for at least the past decade.
Posted by Ty | July 4, 2011 4:38 PM
Posted on July 4, 2011 16:38
No doubt, Kodak is hurting, since everything that ever made them great once upon a time has vanished with new technology. I once read an article of the CEO for Kodak who said back in the early 90s that they had probably moved too slow. But that Kodak has hung on at all is kind of impressive, considering the radical changes in the industry toward digital mediums.
But Kodak will likely fade into oblivion unless they find a new direction to go in. Printing and digital tech is not something you can corner like they did in the old photo market. They need a new business. It might serve the interests of unspecified owners or financiers to just run Kodak into the ground, taking what ever assets they can to somewhere else.
Posted by Scott I | July 5, 2011 2:18 PM
Posted on July 5, 2011 14:18