<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: polaroid 1200si review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.propellerskies.com/2005/09/polaroid-1200si-review/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.propellerskies.com/2005/09/polaroid-1200si-review/</link>
	<description>Taking the internet out into the street and kicking it in the brains since twenty cero to tha four</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 03:02:09 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Smoove D</title>
		<link>http://www.propellerskies.com/2005/09/polaroid-1200si-review/#comment-4683</link>
		<dc:creator>Smoove D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2006 03:00:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=382#comment-4683</guid>
		<description>The Polaroid film is inherently softer than other kinds of film.  Also, the color balance is slightly off.  Both of these characteristics combine to produce appropriately bad photographs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Polaroid film is inherently softer than other kinds of film.  Also, the color balance is slightly off.  Both of these characteristics combine to produce appropriately bad photographs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: %$#@!</title>
		<link>http://www.propellerskies.com/2005/09/polaroid-1200si-review/#comment-4680</link>
		<dc:creator>%$#@!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Dec 2005 03:04:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=382#comment-4680</guid>
		<description>The pictures you get from the 1200si are as good (or bad) as your technique. I think "appropriately bad" is a misleading way to describe the output of this camera, since you're really describing your technique... which happens to be good by the way, judging from the fine BMW picture especially.

Also, Polaroid is not obsolete. I've yet to see a digital camera that produces glossy, waterproof, archival prints in 3 minutes. And nothing else produces the particular aesthetic qualities of Polacolor, not even Photoshop.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The pictures you get from the 1200si are as good (or bad) as your technique. I think &#8220;appropriately bad&#8221; is a misleading way to describe the output of this camera, since you&#8217;re really describing your technique&#8230; which happens to be good by the way, judging from the fine BMW picture especially.</p>
<p>Also, Polaroid is not obsolete. I&#8217;ve yet to see a digital camera that produces glossy, waterproof, archival prints in 3 minutes. And nothing else produces the particular aesthetic qualities of Polacolor, not even Photoshop.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nicky</title>
		<link>http://www.propellerskies.com/2005/09/polaroid-1200si-review/#comment-3518</link>
		<dc:creator>nicky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:16:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=382#comment-3518</guid>
		<description>What a waste of $!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What a waste of $!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

