• bluGill@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    17 days ago

    110 was much better quality photos and had the same ease of starting. Polaroid has much higher quality prints, though they were limited to exactly one size, while in theory you could enlarge disk to larger. With the grain being so bad I don’t know why anyone would (though the article implies that good development processes were not as grainy - but I never saw that)

    • SanctimoniousApe@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      If Polaroids were much “much higher quality” than both 110 and disc (I don’t recall having seen the output of either of the latter two), then 110 and disc must have been extremely bad. I saw a fair number of Polaroids in my younger days, and they always looked very soft and blurry.

      I was too young when 110 was released to know for sure, but it seemed to me it never really was marketed much so it never became all that mainstream. I think the advertising is what drove disc to achieve the market penetration that it did, and that was why it did better than 110 - at least for a little while.

      • bluGill@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        17 days ago

        It has been so long I don’t recall how polaroid compared to 110. I had a disc as a kid so I recall how disapointed I was in it. come to think of it the ‘polaroids’ I remember were kodak before they lost the patent battle and recalled them all.