Talk:Polaroid SX-70

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Polaroid SX-70 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Photography C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Unsaleable.com lists a new type of film specifically for the SX-70. It is called a "blend film" and although "unmanipulatable" it incorporates a filter on the film pack, new dye set?, and can be used with an unmodified camera. Any other information on this would be good before adding it to the article

Unsaleable.com now redirects to http://www.the-impossible-project.com/. I note, also, that the WHOIS information for Unsaleable.com lists Florian Kaps as its owner, he being one of the founders of The Impossible Project. My guess would be that Unsaleable.com and its film were some sort of early version of what evolved into The Impossible Project and its films. — Bob Blaylock (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It was the first and only instant SLR in history (and perhaps the only folding one as well)" is it just me or is whoever wrote that a complete idiot. if it's the only instant slr then of course its the only folding one. jesus christ. Marge4 20:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most folding cameras were not instant, so there easily could be other folding SLRs. But thanks for making your opinions heard in a civil fashion. Camerafiend 15:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the Polaroid Captiva both an SLR and folding? Additionally the SX-70 based Polaroid 690 was also folding/SLR. X570 02:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Nice catch. Camerafiend 05:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The SX-70 is one of the greatest -- if not the greatest -- cameras of all time. This article is barely more than a stub, yet it contains a number of errors and misrepresentations, and a not-very-subtle plug for Blend film. I'm going to make corrections that can be made without a major rewrite -- which this article badly needs. The 35th anniversary of the SX-70's introduction is coming up; it would be nice to have an accurate, comprehensive article about it. (I asked Bert Keppler if I could do such an "appreciatioin essay" for Pop Photo, but he says the magazines owners do not want articles about film cameras or old cameras.) WilliamSommerwerck 11:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a personal website, Emulsional Problems full of manipulated Polaroids. Lots of people do. Is it appropriate to post a link on the SX-70 page or is it too self-promotional? Perhaps a secondary page of SX-70 galleries?

Noahveil (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definetly not appropriate, that would be considered spam. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 08:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Pg32.jpg

The image File:Pg32.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]