Usability of Polaroid backs

I never ever used Polaroid before and wondering whether Polaroid back for MF camera would be of any use. On one hand side, it could be used to check effects of aperture setting especially in macro/closeup scenes and in some cases maybe for exposure or filter setting verification. On the other hand Polaroid film seems to be damn expensive nowadays, with pack of 10 shots costing more than 3 120 BW or 2 color films which seems to make Polaroid hardly practicable for MF and perhaps somewhat usable in LF. Wondering if anyone is using Polaroid backs in modern conditions? Any opinions? Edited May 2, 2020 by oleksandrk

I have several original Polaroid backs, bought new in the film days, that are currently worth nothing. I think I keep them just in case someone in the future make really useful materials and at the right price. I still keep some film boxes that are damaged.

Frankly, I think it`ll never happen, so very likely, the usefulness of my Polaroid backs will be the same as its current value.

The "classic" Polaroid backs sold years ago as accessories to medium format film systems in their heyday were rendered useless when the last remaining film supplier (Fuji) stopped making the required peel-apart film paks. All the outrageously overpriced Fuji film you see for sale now is expired and needs to be used quickly to net the full performance. Polaroid film is years further expired. Expired instant film doesn't hold up as well as expired standard film, so not a good bet unless you're into pricey unpredictable surrealism.

 

The only instant backs still viable are the rare few that take SX70 type no-peel film. Third party companies still make and sell a mediocre knockoff of that Polaroid film. Its kinda fun to play with if you own an old SX70 camera, but blowing upwards of $500 - $700 for a custom made medium format polaback is likely to disappoint.

 

Another option is hacking a current Fuji Instax camera into a back, or re-housing Instax no-peel film into old sheet film holders. Much better film, but small image size and the hacks can be hugely inconvenient to use.

 

Really the only reason to attempt any of this today is the satisfaction of pulling it off: there's no particular artistic or practical benefit. Even as proofs, the modern instant film variations aren't much help beyond confirming your flash fired properly. The tiny off-center 6x6 or 6x7 is too small to enjoy for most purposes unless perhaps you scan it to digital, 6x9 images from press cameras are more versatile.

 

When the genuine Polaroid peel apart and SX70 film was still available, it was capable of being tampered with to create unique little artworks, also it was cheap enough (and frame size big enough) to have a blast handing the pics out to friends. Today, neither feature applies with the films that are left.

To underline what was said above: instant film for professional cameras was a bit of silliness. Land invented the stuff so that consumers did not have to wait for their films to be processed and printed. Not for what these backs were supposedly used for.

 

And that supposed use was to check whether a photographer actually knew what he or she was doing, before he recorded a scene on a frame or two of film. But the thing is: the viewfinder told you (still does) what you are recording. A light meter told you (still does) how it is recorded, tonally. Instant film was particularly bad at doing the latter, had poor (very harsh) contrast and bad colour. And it and was blurry. There were variants that did make quite good pictures, but only if you used the negative that type also supplied (and then you again had to wait for the print, if you were not able to read a negative). And it was quite expensive too.

So people who could use a light meter, knew how to pay attention to focus and framing (and who could read a negative), i.e professional photographers, really had no use for expensive but poor instant prints.

So why?

 

Things haven't changed much: today also, you can often find people at photo shoots who can't do anything of the above (don't have to, to be fair) but insist on seeing every capture (as it is called today) on an instant-viewin-device, nowadays a monitor. Art directors and such. It was for them that tons of Polaroid of Fuji instant film was exposed, at considerable expense of both time and money.

Monitors, digital capture, meant the end of instant film. Unless you want one to complete a collection, these backs are not worth anything. The instant film still available today is overly expensive, and very, very bad (unpredictably so: you can't know in advance how it will turn out).

5 years ago, you could still get in-date Fuji FP-100C. It was a beautiful film-far better than anything Polaroid made.

 

With that said, a lot of instant film looks crummy in a cheap Polaroid with a single element meniscus lens. The better cameras(like the 250) did somewhat better with a 2-element glass lens and couple Zeiss rangefinder. Using quality MF glass properly focused, though, makes a night and day difference and really shows what the film is capable of doing.

 

One of the biggest uses I've always seen for it is with studio lighting. It can be difficult to actually visualize if your ratios are correct and you're getting the desired affect. Older strobes, like the Normans I still use, don't track the modeling lights with the power output(they are independently variable, although you can play with them and get them close) so actually seeing the results from the strobes can make sure you have things as you want or that you're not getting some sort of weird, unexpected effect. These days, even when shooting film, I use digital to check all this stuff, but in the film days Polaroids were the ticket.

To underline what was said above: instant film for professional cameras was a bit of silliness. Land invented the stuff so that consumers did not have to wait for their films to be processed and printed. Not for what these backs were supposedly used for.

 

And that supposed use was to check whether a photographer actually knew what he or she was doing, before he recorded a scene on a frame or two of film. But the thing is: the viewfinder told you (still does) what you are recording. A light meter told you (still does) how it is recorded, tonally. Instant film was particularly bad at doing the latter, had poor (very harsh) contrast and bad colour. And it and was blurry. There were variants that did make quite good pictures, but only if you used the negative that type also supplied (and then you again had to wait for the print, if you were not able to read a negative). And it was quite expensive too.

So people who could use a light meter, knew how to pay attention to focus and framing (and who could read a negative), i.e professional photographers, really had no use for expensive but poor instant prints.

So why?

 

I fully agree, tough between a total beginner and a photographer who knows what she/he is doing there is that learning curve, and certain approximation that could be received "instantly" could be helpful in some aspects. Is wind not too strong for this shutter speed? How will be overall look of certain macro scene at certain aperture? And other similar things that pop up in the process of experience building. For me personally it's not eagerness to get results quickly (otherwise I would use digital camera), but more to have fresh memory of what I was trying to achieve and what was the question posed for best learning effect. I find that in order to be able to learn it is necessary to either have very quick cycle of shoot - develop - print/scan or to maintain detailed notes. Since I can't have continuous quick cycle, I have to note things down to then have lessons learned some weeks later based on final result and to avoid doing the same mistakes all over again :)

 

Now thanks to your insights it seems my initial suspicion is confirmed: it's basically of no use nowadays. So I will stick with my notes :)

I used to use a 4x5 Polaroid back for a bit more confidence when shooting 4x5 transparencies, but today I can't see the use of any of them. IMO, currently worthless in any format.

I bought two kinds of Polaroid backs for an Hasselblad, and one for a 4x5 view camera in hopes I could test the exposure before committing it to film, which I might not see processed for a week. I even bought film packs which would provide both a positive print and a useable negative. The latter was a complete bust. A good negative required twice the exposure as for a print (or was it the other way around). The results were quite different than my light meter predicted, and generally disappointing.

 

Two things happed shortly thereafter. I bought a really good light meter (Sekonic L-508), which I still have and use, and later yet, a Nikon D1x. Sailors are told to trust their compass, pilots their instruments. The same can be said about light meters, once you learn to use them intelligently.

 

The L-508 measures flash too, and can pop them remotely via a radio trigger. Lighting ratios? No problem, and in a fraction of the time it takes to shake down TTL remotes.

Edited May 2, 2020 by Ed_Ingold

Long story short, any artistic or proofing use was dependent on supplies of the one remaining old-school film (Fuji FP-100C). If I could still get it fresh at normal pricing, I'd still use it sometimes in the Polaback for my 6x9 Mamiya Press (or better yet the Polaroid 600 version of the Press which exposes the entire 3x4 instant frame).

 

The big issue for both Polaroid and Fuji was the toxic brew of chemicals required to make really good quality instant film compatible with the old cameras and Polabacks. These chemicals were always problematic, but when the EU banned them that was the end. The knockoff films from the likes of Impossible Project are an amazing but somewhat futile achievement: the legacy Polaroid no-peel format performs poorly in "eco-friendly" guise.

The knockoff films from the likes of Impossible Project are an amazing but somewhat futile achievement: the legacy Polaroid no-peel format performs poorly in "eco-friendly" guise.

 

Yep-SX-70 and type 600 were never great, but the Polaroid product was passable. It also gave you an image in about 2 minutes, was usually all the way up in under 5, and in the case of SX-70 would set in about 15 minutes. With SX-70, you also had the option to shoot it in a genuinely good quality camera. The first SLR I had, the brown leatherette first model, was a thing of beauty at the time when I was just starting to dabble in collecting cameras(with no direction) and it came home from a little country auction with me for $2.

 

It's amazing to me that Impossible was able to get it to work in the first place, and they are to be commended for that. With that said, their product seems to have nasty, muted colors that are more appropriate for an pinstabook filter than a final product, and there's the 30 minute developing time.

 

Given that Fuji is still apparently capable of making quality one step film, it would be nice to see them make a Polaroid-compatible size, but I know that's not likely to happen. It would have been great too if they would have sold the Impossible folks the IP/machinery for pack film...

I had a back for my Bronica and 4x5. They came in handy to confirm the devices were working correctly. Judging by the number of them that have been available, and the amount of pros who used them in the studio, I would be hard pressed to agree they weren't useful in the past. But soon the price of a pack of Fuji will cost as much as a lens for the Bronica so that takes the fun out of it. I guess this is a warm up for how it will feel in the future when no one produces 120 roll film any longer.

I used lots of Polaroid Type 54 back in the day--it was B&W, but it was an accurate ASA 100 and gave a good approximation of what lighting would look like for the Fuji Astia and Provia that I shot for commercial clients. QG is right that a good photographer didn't necessarily need a Polaroid to know what the final result would look like, but I never had a client who could look at a 4x5 ground glass and have a clue as to what the image would look like when processed, so Polaroids were extremely useful for making sure that everyone was on the same page as to what we were going to wind up with. With a very few difficult clients I would have them initial the final Polaroid so that disputes were kept to a minimum. For 4x5 sheets there is a current B&W product called New 55. I tried a box of the very first batch and wasn't that impressed with the results and the cost ($15/sheet) was too high for the quality that I got. They have since improved the product, but the price remains the same since it is essentially a handmade package for each sheet of film.

I probably told this before, but i saw a presentation once (a rant, rather) given by the president of a large creative photographers' association, in which he, while talking, folded a newspaper, cut a bit off, and unfolded it again, producing a large paper frame which he held up to the audience, almost screaming at the same time words to the effect of "You want to see the &%#ing Polaroid? Here's your %ing Polaroid!".

He too did not like art directors and their Alfa Romeos and red rimmed glasses. Or rather their insistence on seeing some proof, instead of trusting the photographer to know what he or she is doing. If you can't see the picture when the scene is right in front of your very eyes, do not ask for a Polaroid (or a monitor). Just get up and leave, and let the people who indeed can what you can't do their business unhindered.

i saw a presentation once (a rant, rather)

 

I'm glad you were all able to hear this, a voice from the P.net past in full-blown photo.net "rant" (since the term was used).

 

I've really missed q.g._de_bakker's posts, and I am being perfectly (well, nothing's perfect) serious.:)

 

But, since there seems to be some odd compulsion to stay on topic, sorta,

 

I used Polaroid in 4x5 when I was shooting on film packs in a Graphic. It made sense then, but even if film were available, I don't think it makes sense in a digital world.

 

The backs, however, make attractive knick-knacks on a shelf with a bellows camera of some kind.

Edited May 3, 2020 by JDMvW

I guess an old digital back for the MF camera isn't too expensive. I think using the digital back instead of Polaroid is better.

it could be used to check effects of aperture setting especially in macro/closeup scenes and in some cases maybe for exposure or filter setting verification.

 

These would be good proofing uses for it, tho not sure how finely focus settings could be judged.

 

As others above have reminded us, a LOT of these Polaroid proofs were done to satisfy art directors and clients during commercial shoots. This would have been practical with 4x5, but more of a token gesture with tiny medium format proofs. Today this is done with digital cameras or backs connected to large monitors.

 

For personal medium format proofing, you might find an old discontinued digital back more useful today than instant film: these can be had for $2000 or so from Phase One or Leaf. ISO is limited to 100 for good results, and they're only available easily/cheaply in Hasselblad V or Mamiya 645 mounts. But very useful for controlled situations where you can view their feed on a good laptop screen.

For personal medium format proofing, you might find an old discontinued digital back more useful today than instant film: these can be had for $2000 or so from Phase One or Leaf. ISO is limited to 100 for good results, and they're only available easily/cheaply in Hasselblad V or Mamiya 645 mounts. But very useful for controlled situations where you can view their feed on a good laptop screen.

 

That is such a great point. If the icky quality of a Polaroid print was satisfying the need, then a $500 H101 tethered to a laptop would create an even better proof (if we were talking about a 500C).

I will say that apparently there's SOME residual demand for them, as in liquidating my RB67 kit, I got a surprisingly strong price for my nearly-unused Polaroid back and P-plate.

 

On the other hand, my nice Arca-Swiss Hasselblad back(which looks to me to be a Polaroid-supplied back door/roller assembly) sits on the shelf because it's worth next to nothing.

 

On the side of small Polaroids from MF-this isn't QUITE the same thing, but I've had some fun over the past few months contact printing MF on Azo. With the right photo, the resultant little prints have a certain charming quality to them.

For personal medium format proofing, you might find an old discontinued digital back more useful today than instant film: these can be had for $2000 or so from Phase One or Leaf. ISO is limited to 100 for good results, and they're only available easily/cheaply in Hasselblad V or Mamiya 645 mounts. But very useful for controlled situations where you can view their feed on a good laptop screen.

 

Thanks orsetto, very good point indeed. Though I happen to use exactly MF camera model that doesn't have any digi backs for it - Bronica GS-1. In terms of proofing, I am fine with trial and error approach, it's only long time it takes between trial and verification on a contact sheet or scan that is a bit of a bugger. Life is so dense, 2 weeks is enough to totally forget what I was after back then unless everything is noted in detail. On the other hand, I did learn so much about photography (in my terms) thanks to slow and thoughtful nature of manual film shooting, so that lack of quick proofing options is not even a slight disappointment for me.

I really can't agree with those who say that instant film for medium format cameras--and especially for 4x5 cameras--is "silliness." As Ansel Adams--and loads of other photographers--knew, the Polaroid can be, in its own right, a beautiful and worthwhile end product. A medium format Polaroid/Fujiroid taken on an RZ-67 is really, even at that size, quite a beautiful object; the fact that it develops "instantly" and is a unique image makes it even more attractive.

 

I know how to expose my film and how to use my flash meter, but I always kept a few boxes of Polaroid and later Fuji FP100C lying around, and shot it for my own enjoyment and that of my clients. I shoot mostly portraiture, and if I was shooting someone interesting, I'd tell them to give me a moment, and we'd do something really nice. Then I'd pop off a few sheets of instant film. I always tried to slyly keep the one I liked best for myself, but the clients were universally thrilled to get the ones I gave them--particularly as most of them were only experienced with digital and had never seen such a thing. I still have a couple of boxes of those miniature portraits I keep.

 

Back in the days when you could get FP100C for around 8 bucks a box from B&H, it was well worth it. (A couple of times when flying back to London from the US, I intentionally chose flights with long layovers at JFK so I could dash into Midtown and drop in at B&H and buy 8 or 10 boxes to carry back with me--fun times, those.)

 

Fuji certainly wasn't obligated to keep producing something that wasn't economically feasible for them just so I could get my jollies, but I'd love to see the return of instant film--and I'm keeping my medium and large format backs not simply because they're pretty worthless right now, but just in case we do ever get to enjoy shooting it again!

Is wind not too strong for this shutter speed?

excuse me, I think thats asking a whole lot from a tiny Polaroid, when I imagine an average landscape shot. A lot of stuff looks OK on a contact print and "falls apart" enlarged. I'm not sure if I'd spot foliage shake with only my 10x linen tester.

How will be overall look of certain macro scene at certain aperture?

Ditto. If ground glass viewing the stopped down aperture is an option the rule of thumb would say stop down 2 f-stops further to really get that look on film (to be slightly enlarged)

Polaroid would be "guesswork assistance" at very best.

Life is so dense, 2 weeks is enough to totally forget what I was after back then unless everything is noted in detail

Out on your own you should maybe record voice notes? Seems easier than scribbling novels.

I don't have interchangeable backs for my MF cameras. If I really wanted to proof ( al lighting setup) before I start shooting, I'd use digital on the side. Otherwise I am hard pressed to see what benefit expensive Polaroids could provide over a "better safe than sorry"-shot on faster stock, in a different regular back, that maybe offers a less risky shutter speed or a bit more DOF...

To underline what was said above: instant film for professional cameras was a bit of silliness. Land invented the stuff so that consumers did not have to wait for their films to be processed and printed. Not for what these backs were supposedly used for.

 

And that supposed use was to check whether a photographer actually knew what he or she was doing, before he recorded a scene on a frame or two of film. But the thing is: the viewfinder told you (still does) what you are recording. A light meter told you (still does) how it is recorded, tonally. Instant film was particularly bad at doing the latter, had poor (very harsh) contrast and bad colour. And it and was blurry. There were variants that did make quite good pictures, but only if you used the negative that type also supplied (and then you again had to wait for the print, if you were not able to read a negative). And it was quite expensive too.

So people who could use a light meter, knew how to pay attention to focus and framing (and who could read a negative), i.e professional photographers, really had no use for expensive but poor instant prints.

So why?

 

Things haven't changed much: today also, you can often find people at photo shoots who can't do anything of the above (don't have to, to be fair) but insist on seeing every capture (as it is called today) on an instant-viewin-device, nowadays a monitor. Art directors and such. It was for them that tons of Polaroid of Fuji instant film was exposed, at considerable expense of both time and money.

Monitors, digital capture, meant the end of instant film. Unless you want one to complete a collection, these backs are not worth anything. The instant film still available today is overly expensive, and very, very bad (unpredictably so: you can't know in advance how it will turn out).

 

100% wrong. As a professional for over 50 years now, Polaroid film was an indispensable tool used by almost all studio photographers to verify light balance under studio strobes, as well strobes used for fill outdoors.

 

Polaroid film was also used 100% of the time on advertising shoots to show to art directors to verify product placement and lighting.

 

And, as with every other photographer I have known, it was used 100% of the time during portrait sessions to provide feedback to the subjects.

I used Polaroid when I was learning 4x5 to verify my camera settings, and I loved P/N film for several reasons, including the apparent lack of any base tone and the funky borders. And yes, Ansel loved it. I also used Readyloads and Quickloads as space and labor-saving alternatives to loading and carrying film holders. When all that went away I lost interest in 4x5 as being too labor intensive for me. Sold all that gear.

100% wrong. As a professional for over 50 years now, Polaroid film was an indispensable tool used by almost all studio photographers to verify light balance under studio strobes, as well strobes used for fill outdoors

 

Not so. Only by those who didn't trust their metering capabilities.

 

Polaroid film was also used 100% of the time on advertising shoots to show to art directors to verify product placement and lighting.

 

That's it: to show other people that they could and really should trust the photographer to know what he/she is doing.

 

And, as with every other photographer I have known, it was used 100% of the time during portrait sessions to provide feedback to the subjects.

 

We know different people.

100% wrong. As a professional for over 50 years now, Polaroid film was an indispensable tool used by almost all studio photographers to verify light balance under studio strobes, as well strobes used for fill outdoors.

 

Polaroid film was also used 100% of the time on advertising shoots to show to art directors to verify product placement and lighting.

 

And, as with every other photographer I have known, it was used 100% of the time during portrait sessions to provide feedback to the subjects.

 

Don't bother arguing with q.g.

 

He is always irrefutably correct about anything related to photography no matter how much voluminous experience you or anyone else may have to the contrary.