Instax Wide Film Review: Why Instant Film Is Thriving Again
PhotographyBy 2015, Fujifilm’s Instax cameras were outselling its digital cameras, and the film that started as a variation on Polaroid’s SX-70 is a big part of why instant photography never died. PetaPixel’s Instax Wide film review, written by Portland film shop Blue Moon Camera and Machine as a sponsored Film Friday piece, argues that consistency, not nostalgia, explains that success. For anyone choosing an instant format, the more practical question is why the shop’s staff mostly pick Wide over Mini or Square.
Why This Category / Comparison Matters
Instax Wide cameras and film arrived in 1999, a year after the Instax Mini. Fujifilm based Instax on Polaroid’s SX-70 films but changed two things. Instax exposes through the back of the film, so cameras need no bulky mirrors to reverse the image. And the pressure plate and batteries live in the camera rather than the film cartridge, which the review says makes cartridges significantly cheaper.
The comparison that shaped the market was Impossible Project film, which the review describes as Instax’s only real early competitor, known for muted, washed-out colors and finicky results. Instax, by contrast, is described as bright, saturated, crisp and consistent from shot to shot.
What Makes It Different
The film is fast. At ISO 800 it handles candid portraits, landscapes, street scenes and indoor shots, and it develops in about five minutes, quick for instant film.
Size is Wide’s real advantage. Fujifilm’s Instax Wide film page lists a 62mm by 99mm picture area on an 86mm by 108mm sheet, sold as a 20-sheet twin pack at a $35.99 list price. The review gives the image as 3.9 by 2.4 inches inside a white border, with an aspect ratio designed to emulate the golden ratio. One reader comment notes the exposed area is larger than a 6x9 medium-format frame. The shop says the larger print is why most of its Instax-owning staff choose Wide.
| Instax format | What the review says |
|---|---|
| Wide | Staff favorite for the larger 3.9 by 2.4 inch image |
| Mini | Users prefer the smaller camera size |
| Square | Mentioned as an alternative; no comparison detail |
The Catch / Who It’s For
Wide cameras are built for simplicity. They have been revised roughly every other year without much change to core functionality, and like a Polaroid OneStep they offer little control. Photographers who want more can use Lomography’s Instax-compatible cameras, which add modest exposure control, multiple exposures or bulb mode, or Fujifilm’s Instax printers, which print phone or camera files as Instax images. Readers also point out the cost: with ten shots per pack, one says they have to budget and plan a shoot rather than shoot freely. Stack Archive covered the other end of the range in Instax Square 2: Mood Filters, AA Batteries and Soft Haze Film. The review’s author sells the film, so its enthusiasm should be read in that light.
The So What
Photographers buying their first instant camera for travel, events or giving prints to the people they photograph should choose Wide over Mini if print size matters more than pocketability, and budget for film as a per-shot cost from the start. Those who want creative control over exposure should look at a Lomography Instax camera or an Instax printer rather than a standard Wide body.
Source: PetaPixel
Content created with AI assistance and reviewed for accuracy.
Join the conversation
Stack Insiders is our free community for readers who want to go deeper — share resources, ask questions, and connect with others across every vertical we cover.
Join Stack Insiders →