They certainly *can* be, albeit not one many professionals would choose.
Remember there is a certain degree of truth to the statement that a pro can take a better photo with a smartphone than a novice can with a top of the line full frame camerau2026.
Equipment selection does matter however.
,The typical instant camera from any maker shoots in Auto for exposure, has a very limited focus system, and often a fixed aperture.
While shooting like that *can* be a stylistic choice and is a valid one (lofi stuff is a THING man!) it is not a choice you are likely to see used to document wildlife for Nat Geo.
(I suppose one *might* see it used to shoot a portrait for Vogue but not OFTEN.
),The funny thing is, there actually IS a Polaroid instant camera that is unquestionably used by professional photographers.
For a little while longer.
,Polaroid made several large format instant cameras in the 1970s that used sheets of 20u2033x24u2033 (!) film.
As you might imagine the resolution, possibilities for depth of field etc are all unique and impressive even by modern standards.
Film is long out of production, parts are custom, and these will not be around much longer unless a substantial effort is put to maintaining them.
,In the old days, supposedly some professionals would use other not quite as large Polaroid cameras for applications where they immediately needed prints, Im sure that was true somewhere some time but I didnt really exist then so I cant speak to it.
I think theyre fairly popular in music precisely because they have something of a junky kitschy appeal.
Again, its a safe bet someone somewhere has been paid to shoot with one of the things and a few even got published.
A typical consumer instant camera would be a very niche choice however.
You should have used your common sense and bought a digital camera.
,The u2018Polaroid is an anachronism, like the Harley Davidson it is a triumph of marketing over design.
,Why would anyone pay .
70p per picture in an age when the per picture cost has dropped to almost .