Talk:Land Camera

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 December 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Photography: History 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject History of photography. Industrial design Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial design 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.Industrial designWikipedia:WikiProject Industrial designTemplate:WikiProject Industrial designIndustrial design articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Brands 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please see User talk:Landcamera900. Tyrenius (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please don't restore those photos in that manner. It ruins the look of the article, I understand your attachment to the photos but they are already in use in "instant camera" can't that be enough? Thank youLandcamera900 (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do not own this article and therefore you do not dictate it. I think the pictures belong and the fact that I took them is irrelevant. You were complaining earlier today about assuming good faith, but it seems that's lost on you now. Do you have anything more substantial than your opinion that it "ruins the look of the article"? Cburnett (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly do not think I own the article, no one owns any wiki article. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to be attached to the photos (whether you are or not) so good faith does not come into play, furthermore I do not want any animosity with you, so please stop acting so terse with me. The cameras are already well documented as far as images are concerned. the old photos are unnecessary and confusing IMO Landcamera900 (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my post on User_talk:Landcamera900#Image_copyvio, which you haven't answered. Tyrenius (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the current way the photos have been reinserted is much better than it was before.Landcamera900 (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the way wiki works - collaborative improvement. Tyrenius (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am "terse" because of how you've acted with this article and toward me. You don't know nor understand WP's policies, but that doesn't stop you. You tell me to, basically, shut up about expansion. You argue, repeat, and don't want to listen to someone like me who's been here longer and understands things around here better. (The AFD being closed via WP:SNOW says a lot!) That's arrogance, and I don't particularly care for it. The whole time you refuse to collaborate and make it better: nope, delete is the only answer. Every attempt to delete has failed so now you're forced to deal with it and the first thing you do is delete images. Nothing you have done here has been to make anything resembling a consensus: your way or your way. Period. If you don't want animosity then stop culturing it. Please. (I apologize for making this excessively personal and off-topic.) Cburnett (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I did come across that way, but it was not my intention, I'm a very agreeable person... really (I'm sorry if I somehow offended you)Landcamera900 (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The chemistry for the Polaroid process was adopted and developed at Polaroid but there was a practical problem with containing the process in a marketable product. Edwin Land invented a spreader that squeezed the negative, chemistry and print paper through two strips of metal. The invention failed to produce satisfactory results. Herbert A. Bing, a graduate of M.I.T. was hired from Eastman Kodak and assigned to come up with a functional design. His result was a sprung roller system that included a machined gap. The system proved effective and overcame the largest obsticle to the production of a practical consumer camera that produced acceptable prints. Admittedly, the first prints were of a sepia tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.53.58 (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I question the year 1948 as a time for the marketing of the first consumer Polaroid instant camera. It is a patent date and may not include the roller spreader system noted above. My recollection is that Herbert Bing was hired after 1948. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.53.58 (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone remember how much the first poloroid cameras cost? and when were they first put on store shelves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.18.7 (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Model 95 cost $89.75 in 1948. Rochkind (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me, basic Q's are unanswered. They overlap somewhat:

-  What is the world's 1st commercially available instant camera?

-  Did the Land produce black-and-white or color prints? "Sepia-colored" tells me neither.

-  What is the world's 1st commercially available instant color film and/or camera?

-  Cameras and film are conflated, or at least not segregated. Polaroid's introduction of instant "sepia-colored" prints is presented by way of a camera, i.e. the Land. But its introduction of instant color prints is presented by way of a film, Polacolor. Leaving us trying to compare apples and oranges. How many and what products are we talking about here? What Polaroid film was used in the Land (if that's a meaningful Q)? Or was it sold with the film inside? What camera/s accepted Polacolor film? (Had Polaroid's policy, say, changed by the time Polacolor was introduced so you could now, or now had to, buy the film separately? If so, since when? All unclear to me.)

-  Year 1957 is mentioned, but only in a picture caption. Relegate no content to only a caption. If that year is important, tell us why in the text.

-  Etc.

Jimlue (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Q seems fundamental enough to be stated in a separate entry:

Why is an article w. title Land Camera covering other cameras—SX-70, 100 Series, etc.?

Should it be re-titled Polaroid cameras?

Jimlue (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]