Interesting

[RubbishBin1987]

I notice this for a long time, but today talk with a workmate surprise me quite badly to ask it.

I just found out i have a workmate today who is into film photography. When chatting with him, he refers his spinner camera which he brought from the lomography shop as 35mm camera. So i question him what does he call an instant film, he answered "polaroid".

1. Instant film are instant film, fuji produced instant film are call not called polaroid. Polaroid is a brand. Please do not call fp or instax films polaroid.

2. 35mm is a film frame size like what we call 645, 67, 69 etc. 135 is the format like what we call 120, 220 etc. This is applied to roll film as unlike a sheet film like 4x5, roll film format is not fixed as long as it is not longer than the roll. It will be very interesting if i can find someone using a seagull calling it a 69 camera. (btw, 135 has no mm behind for the format)

 

[mamypoko]

With regards to 1), it is the same thing with people calling velcro, velcro, when they should be calling it hook and loops, and Lycra, lycra, when it should be called Spandex.

In that sense Polaroid has become the generic trademark of instant films.

 

[kgston]

Yupp, like how we call tupperware and scotch tape.. its just convenient to use those names because everyone knows what we are referring to although they are trademark names and refer to a very specific brand of product. Added to the problem is that most people aren't too concerned about the naming details or are knowledgeable enough to know the difference, hence if you keep using generic terms like instant films, people may not actually know what you are talking about.. but say Polaroid, and a light bulb goes off.. same goes for 135 format film.. 35mm is just easier to refer to because everyone knows what it means, even though it is actually a frame size..

Although it is good for others to know the difference and the correct terminology, I don't think its a very major issue, especially for layman.. but of course when talking to other film photographers, it is good to use the correct terms

 

[sweat100]

Well... effective communication boils down if you can get your point across rather than exact knowledge. Does CR-56 sound more alien than E-6 and CN-16 sound like a new process compared to C-41? At least it does to me! If you are talking to connoisseurs, its good to be exact because they know the exact differences. Else there is not much differences between a peel apart instant photo and an integral instant photo to a general consumer.

 

[raytoei]

or maggie-mee is the standard for all instant noodles in the army. a few years ago, a motorbike was called a honda in vietnam regardless of the make.

 

[RubbishBin1987]

This is purely from my POV:

If it is from people who have generally no interest in the field of area, I do understand that there might be misunderstanding due to layman phrase and misleading knowledge being spread around. But for someone hobblist and above, the misunderstanding seems out of place.

Example: One who takes a car for the sole purpose of transport around need not know more than few things like the brake pedal, steering wheel in the car. But one who is into motorsport with high level of interest should know to certain high degree about his machine like the engine used, how the spark plug works, the material used for his car, even the grade of tyre his car has. (I am not into motorsport, it is just an example)

 

[sweat100]

If you talk about being specific, as he had told you, he is into film photography (roll film in this case), not instant film photography. The question you are asking is out of scope and not within his knowledge.
Being interested in film photography does not translate to being interested in technical terms in photography. One may have an nice automatic watch because he is interested in horology, but he/she may not know know if it is caliber 4130 or 3313 or others. Rather than questioning him his knowledge, wouldn't it be better to welcome him to the world of instant photography and introduce him to different instant formats to get an appreciation of the common perceptions of why people call Polaroids and why people shake the photograph when it ejects from the camera?

 

[ahhong]

Interesting. Indeed! I was attracted to this thread by the title. I think this link sort of give answers to the question 1 and 2 here. The number 135 and 120 was actually just a film number from Kodak for the roll film they produced during the era where there were many types of format available in the market...So technically when we used "120" film produced by Fujifilm we might want to call it "Fujifilm <<insert fujifilm cat No. here>>" to be correct:bsmilie:

 

[Achim Reh]

I notice this for a long time, but today talk with a workmate surprise me quite badly to ask it.


2. 35mm is a film frame size like what we call 645, 67, 69 etc. 135 is the format like what we call 120, 220 etc. This is applied to roll film as unlike a sheet film like 4x5, roll film format is not fixed as long as it is not longer than the roll. It will be very interesting if i can find someone using a seagull calling it a 69 camera. (btw, 135 has no mm behind for the format)

I dont understand what you mean. 135 was a marketing name by Kodak for 35mm film put into a cassette for photographic cameras. The original 35mm film was developed for movie cameras. In photo cameras, the common negative sizes for this film are 24X18 , 24x36, 24x72 , plus some more exotic measurements. The therm 120 was also introduced by Kodak for the still photographic film adapted form 70mm movie film material. Common negative sizes are between 6X4.5 to 6X18 . The Seagull is a 6x6 not a 6X9 by the way. It is very common, that brand names are adapted into the language to describe certain products , which are not necessary from the manufacturer who once introduced this product. Some examples are Teflon , Escalator, Band-Aid

 

[Riotbmx]

I dont understand what you mean. 135 was a marketing name by Kodak for 35mm film put into a cassette for photographic cameras. The original 35mm film was developed for movie cameras. In photo cameras, the common negative sizes for this film are 24X18 , 24x36, 24x72 , plus some more exotic measurements. The therm 120 was also introduced by Kodak for the still photographic film adapted form 70mm movie film material. Common negative sizes are between 6X4.5 to 6X18 . The Seagull is a 6x6 not a 6X9 by the way. It is very common, that brand names are adapted into the language to describe certain products , which are not necessary from the manufacturer who once introduced this product. Some examples are Teflon , Escalator, Band-Aid

Off topic, are you still in SG? If yes we need to catch up with some coffee man

 

[Achim Reh]

Yes, I am still in SG ....but my last days are counted, leaving this coming monday after 14 years here in this wonderful country :-(( .
NOt sure if I ever return ( also, I will try to ) , but when things have settled a bit for me , I will continue to contribute here ...well, at the end , I am going back to the Land of Zeiss, Rollei, Leica, Schneider-Kreuzenach and Rodenstock, I can get every possible exotic developer and raw materials of the shelf, and I might even have the time to do my own film developing again.

"" Not to forget, Polaroid actually invented the Instant Film, Fuji agreed in 1986 to have infringed Polaroid's patents with it's instant film, both firms had reached an settlement that allowed Fuji to continue to manufacture and market it's instant film, so, in fact, todays Fuji Instant Film is actually a Polaroid Film "" ;-)

 

[sfoto100]

Yes, I am still in SG ....but my last days are counted, leaving this coming monday after 14 years here in this wonderful country :-(( .
NOt sure if I ever return ( also, I will try to ) , but when things have settled a bit for me , I will continue to contribute here ...well, at the end , I am going back to the Land of Zeiss, Rollei, Leica, Schneider-Kreuzenach and Rodenstock, I can get every possible exotic developer and raw materials of the shelf, and I might even have the time to do my own film developing again.

"" Not to forget, Polaroid actually invented the Instant Film, Fuji agreed in 1986 to have infringed Polaroid's patents with it's instant film, both firms had reached an settlement that allowed Fuji to continue to manufacture and market it's instant film, so, in fact, todays Fuji Instant Film is actually a Polaroid Film "" ;-)

oh.. though i never meet you, you remained one of those few film guys who knows alot abt film in CS.. hope to see u in some future gathering before u leave.