(101 to 127 of 127 replies)
spɹɐɥɔıɹɥɐuuɐɥ 2:34pm, 6 January 2010
PLR IP Holdings, LLC, owners of the Polaroid™ brand, today announced a multi-year strategic partnership with Lady Gaga, who will serve as creative director for a specialty line of Polaroid Imaging products. The partnership brings together one of the world’s most iconic brands with today’s fastest rising musical artist and cultural trend setter, known for her string of smash global hits including Paparazzi, Bad Romance and Poker Face, her fashion forward design aesthetic and her exceptionally close connection with her fans.

Lady Gaga will make a special appearance at the Polaroid booth at the 2010 Consumer Electronic Show (CES) in Las Vegas on Thursday, January 7 at 10:45am to talk about her new creative and business relationship with the Polaroid brand.

"I am so proud to announce my new partnership with Polaroid as the creative director and inventor of specialty projects,” said Lady Gaga. “The Haus of Gaga has been developing prototypes in the vein of fashion/technology/photography innovation--blending the iconic history of Polaroid and instant film with the digital era--and we are excited to collaborate on these ventures with the Polaroid brand. Lifestyle, music, art, fashion: I am so excited to extend myself behind the scenes as a designer, and to as my father puts it--finally, have a real job."

“Lady Gaga's broad creative talents and the way she connects with her fans in her own, unique manner made her a natural choice for Polaroid,” said Stephen Miller, co-CEO of PLR IP Holdings. “Polaroid has had a special connection with its customers for years, we are delighted to be partnering with Lady Gaga to continue with that tradition and bring new and exciting products to the next generation."

The partnership with Lady Gaga is the most recent in a string of partner announcements by PLR IP Holdings, LLC (PLR), the new owner of the Polaroid brand. In the past six months, PLR has assembled a family of Polaroid partners for product development, marketing distribution and licensing. Building upon Polaroid’s rich history, the Polaroid partner network will support fans and users of classic Polaroid products and deliver new Polaroid products to a new generation of Polaroid customers while staying true to Polaroid's long-standing values of fun and simplicity.

New products by Polaroid and Lady Gaga are to hit retail shelves starting in late 2010.

(101 to 127 of 127 replies)
chi_cowboy Posted 9 years ago. Edited by chi_cowboy (member) 9 years ago
Whether as official spokespeople or otherwise, celebrities can increase attention and interest in many products. Jeff Bridges probably has done more to maintain interest (and dollar value) of the F series Widelux cameras than anybody in history.

I'm keeping an open mind on Lady Gaga.
CRTdrone Posted 9 years ago. Edited by CRTdrone (member) 9 years ago
What's with all this QMM bashing? When people come in here asking for help he's one of the first people to offer some help.

Reminds me of Gran Torino-I see lady Gaga as the teenage nerd, and QMM as the Clint Eastwood character, just give the guy a chance- in the end he means well.
nigeljonze 9 years ago
if this leads to more hot hipster girls nerding out over my/their polaroids i'm all for it
JolietDeltaTango-0505 9 years ago
Nobody is being unfair to qmm. He just keeps bitching about the same shit over and over and OVER.

So what? He hates Lady GaGa and teenagers. I GET IT.

I stand by my statement. quit yer bitchin' and go take some damn photos. Maybe then you'll finally have some goddamn fun.
Felix Owl 9 years ago
I agree, QMM is very helpful and has helped me in the past, but he does bitch an awful lot which gets a bit boring and unnecessary after a while.

And things like "I have close to zero respect for people under 30. Most are poorly educated, know little about anything" are, frankly, really stupid things to say. Ironic in their stupidity, in fact.

Anyway.. hey, I shot some 669 in my EE100 Special today. It was of a snowman with no body, just a head, but a really cool bow tie and some black wayfarers. What about YOU?
London Calling! 9 years ago
QMM is cool. Leave him alone. It's really hard to be that eccentric!
b=o=b 9 years ago
The issue raised isn't QMM or age or teenagers or hipsters or fun... it's style (marketing folks at polaroid-the-company decided that lady gaga will drive sales - people will use polaroid because lady gaga does, tells them to, whatever) v. substance (people using polaroid film find it useful, interesting, capable of results they like).

I don't believe a focus on style will maintain polaroid film long term. If Urban Outfitters is your main distributor, your product will be around as long as it appeals to Urban Outfitters customers. And no longer. And if people buy because lady gaga.. I'll be very surprised if that's particularly motivating a year from now.
moominsean 9 years ago
i agree, this has nothing to do with qmm...he's just a person with an opinion, like the rest of us. and while i agree that the lady gaga thing may make polaroid "hip", it's defnly a flash in the pan thing. but, like i said, most companies want to make money NOW, not later.

i honestly believe polaroid is dead to the general population and will remain to be dead. it will be for fans like us and those interested in something trendy and "retro hip" for however long that lasts. but most people wouldn't notice if polaroid was gone for good at this point.
enriquevw 9 years ago
Moominsean, it's true, specially people who never shot a polaroid, would never notice if it was gone. Even people who did shoot kind of regularly aren't at all aware of TIP. I just wish that this thing would explode into worldwide revival of instant photography, but that's stupid to hope for, it wouldn't happen, because everyone now just has digital...
Oh well. Let's see how long we can keep our dream alive!
queermountainman Posted 9 years ago. Edited by queermountainman (member) 9 years ago
There's another aspect to the decline of instant photography that no one has (apparently) discussed.

In 1948, most people used cameras with non-interchangeable lenses of a single focal length. Cameras with interchangeable lenses -- especially SLRs -- were uncommon and usually expensive. If you shot with a Leica or Exakta, you were the exception.

In the past 60 years, the SLR (in a variety of formats) has become all but universal among professionals and serious amateurs, while only the cheapest cameras lack zoom lenses.

Instant-picture cameras have not kept up. Not only are their pictures half the area of the cheap-but-good prints you get at Costco, but you're stuck with a single lens of a single focal length (unless you have a medium-format camera that can fully expose Colorpack materials).

In short... instant-picture cameras cannot do what we commonly expect digital or "conventional" cameras to do. This has to have some effect on instant photography.
(deaf mute) 9 years ago
queermountainman It's slightly odd that even Fuji hasn't produced a zoom lensed Instax Wide. It's not as if they don't have the technology. Maybe there just isn't a market for it, as the cameras are still treated as "party snapshooters".
Personally, I prefer wide-angles anyway, which is why I like the wider field of view of the Image/Spectra 1200FF and (to a certain extent) the 100mm focal length of the One600 Classic.
barharbor04 9 years ago
Even a "moderate" tele's good to have in general. In as much as I love my Olympus XA/A-16 and XA2/A-11, they're only a 35mm focal length.

A couple of decades ago my sister had the Olympus Infinity Twin (I believe it was both 35mm and something like 85mm, but nothing in between) and when she tired of it and went SLR I almost bought it from her but was turned-off solely because it was an earlier auto-focus camera that lacked "infinity override" ... something even my Spectra has, and something I absolutely-positively insist on.
future apparatus [deleted] 9 years ago
QMM, ur totally wright, I love reading your analysis.
I CAN understand that there is promotion to be done but going for Lady Gaga seems pretty ignorant to me! Is like using cologne for selling eggs.
So now what to expect the Gagaroid Camera (after the Spice Girls one?)
I just don't want to think of her as a real polaroid creative director. Hope they dig her for good (for obvious reasons) before she falls out of her stardom [how long is her teen-attraction gonna last (yea, teen-attraction is not the point)]
FotoGraf-Zahl Posted 9 years ago. Edited by FotoGraf-Zahl (member) 9 years ago

I'm new to this group, so consider this as my introduction post. ;-)

In many points I agree with QMM (not with his opinions about people below 30).

IMHO since the rise of digital photography instant cameras lost their compatibility with the mass market.
Who shoots Polaroid nowadays? Mostly photo enthusiasts who simply like the characteristics of instant film. Probably not people who want to create pinpoint sharp, technically perfect pictures.
Polaroid went from mass market to the niche market.
This does not have to be bad! The Impossible Project is very aware of this fact, and I read an interview with Florian Kaps in which he actually said somthing of this kind.

Lady Gaga is the same to me, I neither like or dislike her, but what seems as a good marketing strategy at first glance, will probably not be successful in the long run.
Has anybody thought about which teenager will be able to afford buying instant films?
Digital photography is also kind of instant gratification - on a small monitor of a camera. And a ruined shot doesn't cost 2 EUR...
I doubt that the typical teenager (mind there are always exceptions) is interested in the characteristics (color, smell, tones, contrast, vignetting, etc.) of a picture. Well, actually many of them take (blurry, horrible) pictures with their mobile phones - and like them.
So why should they spend an awful lot of money on instant photography?

So choosing Lady Gaga does not fit here IMHO - not because I wouldn't like her, but because she is popular with the "wrong" target audience.

TIP and Polaroid seem to focus on differing target audiences.
queermountainman 9 years ago
It's probably true that instant photography is of intererst only to professional and serious-amateur photographers. * As you point out, the average teenager isn't likely to invest $2 or $3 per picture for an instant photo.

As for Lady GaGa... Note the hairdo of the golem in this photo from the classic silent film...


...and compare it with her hairdo for the Fame Monster photo.


Fascinating, is it not?

* The late Herbert Keppler -- founder of Modern Photography and later the publisher of Popular Photography -- told me that most professional photographers were Polafreaks. He didn't explain why, but I suspect that it was the simple pleasure of seeing a really good photo immediately. There are other reasons for professional photographers to like instant photography, which are of little or no interest to the average snapshooter.
FotoGraf-Zahl 9 years ago

The comparison of these pictures - incredible!
My wife just called from downstairs if everything is alright when she heard me laughing...
necessary work [deleted] 9 years ago
...glad to realise polaroid/integral film isn't something I hang my hat on... Lest I be made to defend my support this buffoonery.

Fuji to the rescue - I can get my fix for instant gratification and not have to be embarassed...
Option8 9 years ago
^ what?

Lady Gaga aint selling the film you know.
queermountainman Posted 9 years ago. Edited by queermountainman (member) 9 years ago
@FotoGraf-Zahl... At least I'm good for something.... You semi-made my day. Thanks. (I looked at your Flickr page. Wow.)

@.chromogenus... I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at -- other than possibly being upset at using a product endorsed by a pop star.
necessary work [deleted] 9 years ago
I know, but still.

I'm not upset. Amused, in a sad way... but, not upset...
FotoGraf-Zahl 9 years ago
Thanks - glad you like my Flickr page! :-)
Unnoteworthy 9 years ago
For some odd reason I get the insight of a remake to poker face when they just replace the words with polaroid.
(deaf mute) 9 years ago
Who would people rather have as the public face of Polaroid? I'm not sure what I'd be more embarrassed about buying - a camera with Gaga's face on the box, or queermountainman's! :D
queermountainman Posted 9 years ago. Edited by queermountainman (member) 9 years ago
I'll take that as a compliment -- I like the thought that I might frighten people!
(deaf mute) 9 years ago
queermountainman It was a compliment. Instead of being all about fashion and bling, you could be a sort of nutty professor that the kids would love to hate. :)
barharbor04 9 years ago
@ QMM: Your very (post) name subconsciously brings a famous James Dickey tale to mind, and I'm sure that in-and-of-itself this instills fear in some people. I can't even joke about the film version of it when drinking (+!) with my friend / tenant next door without him squirming uncomfortably in his seat, and he's never been in jail, either (not YET anyway!).
queermountainman 9 years ago
Would you be amused to learn that the role's actor, William McKinney, has a Website named squeallikeapig.com?
(101 to 127 of 127 replies)
Groups Beta