Discussion in 'Large Format' started by william_littman|1, Dec 17, 2015.
NO, I'M NOT... erm... i mean: no. I'm not. Too cumbersome. Too expensive. And is it any good?
For me it was mostly a novelty the first time
around. I'm not particularly excited the second
time, so I'll graciously leave this discussion. Exit,
Original Type 55 P/N filled the bill of a 4x5 film processable without a darkroom, just a bucket with sulfite solution and wash water. I would use this if I could get some. This new film apparently calls for fixing in conventional rapid fixer, which I would not allow in my kitchen or bathroom and which requires a lab of some kind. Original Type 55 P/N was already a niche market with borderline commercial viability, this new film would seem to have even narrower appeal.
I knew 55 and 105 to be used in some scientific research labs. Convenient in that you can see an instant print, and also have a negative for later use, such as publication.
I did for some time work with a microscope camera using pack film, and I had a pack of 105, but I don't remember using it. It might also have been popular with oscilloscope cameras.
If I have read it correctly, it is $85 for five shots. If I have to add shipping, it will turn to more than $20 per shot, even more for european customers.
I certainly used to like the 55, but to my taste the price is simply ridiculous. I`m not whimsical enough to spend such amount on Polaroid film.
And it appears from their Facebook postings that there are unanticipated surprises like white dots on some packs, tabs
coming loose, improper developer spreading, etc. they also make a strong point of putting the negative face down in the
fixer. I wonder what happens to I if it is put in face up? I give them credit for trying but it doesn't look like it is close to a
really mature, reliable product yet. They have posted videos of their production lines and it does not look like it is done in
a real clean room.
And it appears from their Facebook postings that there are unanticipated surprises like white dots on some packs, tabs
coming loose, improper developer spreading, etc. they also make a strong point of putting the negative face down in the
fixer. I wonder what happens to I if it is put in face up? I give them credit for trying but it doesn't look like it is close to a
really mature, reliable product yet. They have posted videos of their production lines and it does not look like it is done in
a real clean room. So no, I am not at all excited about it yet.
Entirely out of my price range. - Sorry. It might be OK for 4Euro a pop, but I would still wonder if I can't get away with conventional film instead.
Out of curiosity’s sake, I bought a box of the stuff. Right now, it’s basically handmade and frightfully expensive. A box of five sheets costs $85.00 which equates to about $17.00/exposure. The box will tell you what the E.I. is (mine was 50), but it can range as high as 200. It will tell you how long to develop before you start processing (for me, two minutes). I used my old Busch Pressman 4X5 with the Polaroid back. I had no problems loading, sliding the dark slide in or out, or with processing. The instant print looked OK, but is pretty soft with not much detail The negative though was superb. Very sharp, good tonal range with nice contrast. It scans well and would also make an excellent negative for those who use a wet darkroom. I had no issue with putting the negative in fixer after processing.
If they can get the price down, I’l buy some more. From reading their blog, they recently invented a machine that should reduce the hand labor needed to make the film and lower the cost. I give them an “A” for effort and hope they succeed.
Aren't we leaving out a step or two? If you have to fix the negative then don't you have to wash it to remove the fixer after
fixing? Then what about drying? Is this really a process that can be properly done out of the studio? And do you use
PhotoFlo after washing?
After processing, you stick the negative into a 50/50 mix of Ilford Rapid Fixer and water. I gather this is done to fix the neg as well to help remove the last traces of the developing gel, which turns to goo and falls off the negative. This takes about one minute. Then you stick the neg in water for a few minutes, agitate, and hang to dry. I didn’t use photo-flow (we have a water softener) but I suppose you could. In our bone-dry house (it’s winter where I live, so the heat is on), the neg dries in less than an hour. I really was surprised by the quality of the negative, it’s quite good.
Right now, it’s a better studio film than outdoor film. The fixing/wash steps are necessary ones.
I have a few sheets left and will be using those on a model shoot I have planned in a few weeks. I’m really curious how those will turn out.
If the print is "pretty soft with not much detail", quite different from the superb negative, why not use regular, also superb negative film?<br>Is the print's ISO the same as the negative? Or would we, if we wanted a good print too (provided this stuff can deliver such a thing), have to expose two sheets, one for the print, one for the negative?<br>And every box is different?<br>Personally, i really do not see the point of this product.
The point is to offer a modern “Polaroid” 4X5 film that gives you a print and a negative. What they’re trying to do is hard and the company has been very open that they may not be able to pull this off. This is a beta product, that is hand-coated, which explains the variable ISO’s and developing times. If you buy some now, like I did, you’ll be using an experimental film.
I don’t work for the company. I bought a pack because I was curious what a modern Polaroid 4X5 type-film would look like. They’re not there yet. The prints need work and they need to drastically lower costs. Still, I’m intrigued. I like instant photography and would love to have an 4X5 instant film that I can use in my old Busch Pressman. We’ll see if New55 can do it.
Jim, why is that a needed point?
This technology was replaced many years ago by digital. The real market for instant film was in forensics, real estate,
industry, etc. it was not landscape or experimental photography. The former markets have all long ago switched to digital
and considering the quality that can come out of digital vs the time and cost savings of digital vs instant film there is very
little possibility that instant can ever recoup any meaningful portion of that market. That will just leave them with the art
market which is very small and not necessarily big spenders.
Its nice but too expensive for me.
Jim, why is that a needed point? This technology was replaced many years ago by digital.Why is film needed at all anymore? Digital can do most anything, I think we all agree on that. Instant film is different, and a 4X5 instant film, if it delivers a distinct look, just may succeed. I’m guessing it most likely end up as a portrait film, which is how I intend use it. Google “Johnny Depp New55” to see an example of what this instant film can do.
It’s interesting to note that New55 raised over $415,000 via Kickstarter. About 2,500 backers, if I remember correctly (which didn’t include me).
If you want to learn more, check out their website, And especially read their blog, which tells all. Again, they’re amazing open on the difficulties and challenges that lie ahead.
The point can't be to make something of which people have to wonder what its point is. What is the point of "offer[ing] a modern "Polaroid" 4x5 film that gives you a print and a negative"?
What is the point of having an extremely expensive but poor print and a usable negative (a thing to make superb prints from) if you could make superb prints from at least equally superb but much cheaper film? Do we need that not so good print?
The crux must be the instantaneous nature of the process. Having the print almost immediately. But that instantaneous nature of the process leaves a bit to be desired. Is lacking somewhat. (Did so in the past already. Appears to be worse now.) At what cost? Lots of money. Some work. But more important: quality?
But yes: if that's what you like about the product... And apparently plenty people think they do. But i'm still not excited about it. I never was about instant film. I agree with Bob on that. The look of instant film was the look of (as you described) not so good film: soft with little detail. That was easy to achieve using other, much cheaper film as well. People still payed too much because (unsurprisingly) it was the way to get an instant (but not good - it would have been nice if it had been better, but for the purpose it served it didn't matter) print.
What is the point of having an extremely expensive but poor print and a usable negative
It may not be obvious to the average enthusiast, but in the days before digital it was certainly an advantage in studio photography to have an instant print, ideally with good tonality but if not, at least good enough to judge composition, lighting, model's expression/pose, etc., together with a negative which could be ready for printing in 10 minutes (including accelerated drying in a drying cabinet). Furthermore, the time saved by not having to carry out wet processing (at least 30 minutes) would to a certain degree offset the extra cost of the Type 55 P/N material. This certainly applied to me with the original Polaroid film. Given the cost of this new material, however, it is indeed difficult to know who might be likely to buy it. Apart from a potential speed gain in processing, almost any user will almost certainly find it better to use conventional film and send this away to a laboratory for processing.
We have different memories of the benefit of Polaroid, David. In my recollection, the stuff was only good to keep people happy who weren't able to envisage the end result, and/or who did not trust the photographer to be able to do that. There are few craftsmen and women who need and have a practice run first for every thing they make. Photographers aren't different (though today's chimping might suggest otherwise).<br>Polaroid's role has been taken over by the computer monitor. The photographer, knowing what he or she is doing, is taking pictures. The people who don't know are glued to the monitor, to check whether the photographer does indeed know what he or she is doing.<br>I once saw a talk given to an association of designers and art directors in which the speaker went off on a passionate rant against the red Alfa Romeo crowd who thought they needed to be present at 'shoots' to check on the photographer but needed little example pictures of dubious quality to be able to 'imagine' what was going on, yet still thought of themselves as being able to judge what the photographer was doing. During his rant he folded a (broad sheet) newspaper, ripped off part of that and unfolded the resulting frame, held it up as if framing a scene and ended his rant with a "You want to see the picture?! There is your f&#%ing picture!". If you can't use your eyes, don't know how some scene translates to a printed image, you have no business being present at a photo shoot.<br>I have always shared that sentiment.<br><br>In the days before digital, Polaroid was a time and money consuming distraction needed to please people who didn't know how to use their eyes or how cameras work. Polaroid really sucked big time at showing exposure or tonality. It couldn't reproduce colour either. Sharpness was laughably bad. Nothing like the (much, much better) result that would be produced on film. Pose? Things in the frame that aren't supposed to be there, etcetera? You, the photographer, are present at the shoot, know and do pay attention to what you are doing, aren't you?<br>I think the revival of instant film (if it succeeds) will be driven by the same thing that has been responsible for the revival of vinyl sound records: people who don't know or remember the very good reasons why we said goodbye and good riddance to the stuff.<br>There certainly was no advantage in studio or other photography to having an instant print. I can understand that people for whom instant photography is something new might want to give it a go. But that's the only advantage: to give newbies a chance to find out why Polaroid went bust.<br><br>And that last thing is really important to keep in mind. If Polaroid film was such a good thing to have, it wouldn't have disappeared. But it has.
the stuff was only good to keep people happy who weren't able to envisage the end result, and/or who did not trust the photographer to be able to do that.
I totally agree - unfortunately there are (were) lots of this kind of person around. These days they will of course be gathered round the monitor. Many working pros will feel like swearing at their clients but will instead apply the 95% principle, which works for writing and pictures - do the very best that you can but put it a couple of obvious deliberate mistakes, which the "experts" present will then find. This will make them feel very pleased with themselves and they will almost certainly pronounce themselves satisfied as soon as the little mistakes have been fixed (thus returning the work to the precise state intended by the author in the first place).
And, if this film is still experimental (ISO changes dramatically by the box), lousy edges, pull tabs might come off, etc. then
why is it being sold and why are people gullible enough to pay a lot of money to be test Guinea pigs?
If it is experimental still then they should be giving it away to testers not charging them for the privilege to be a tester. If it that easy to get people to spend good money that way then I do know where I can find some very good snake oil that can solve all kind of problems for you. And like resurrecting Polaroid, snake oil haven't been available for even longer!
Film is a niche. Large format photography is a niche of a niche. Instant, large format photography is a niche of a niche of a niche. So we’re talking a real small market here, OK? If New55 can pull this off (and they openly admit they may not), I’ll gladly buy their product.
As the only guy in this discussion who’s actually used the stuff, I don’t get all of the negative comments from those on the sidelines. Why not try some and see for yourself?
And BTW, I won’t be buying anymore until they bring the costs down. At $17.00/pop, it’s too damn expensive.
What I don’t get is your guy’s attitude. A startup company is trying to bring out a new 4X5 film and you seem to be hoping they fail. Amazing.
I don't hope they fail. But I also don't think that they have a product whose quality is salable yet. And I don't think that they are right in
selling an unproven product to the public yet. As to their latest sample print that they put up on Facebook today, emulsion is missing from
the print area. That is not an example of a product ready to market.
If you were willing to spend almost $100.00 for 5 sheets of a product that may or may not work then more power to you. But, if you spent
it after seeing examples of the prints like the one posted today, or after reading about white spots, pull tabs coming off, improper or
incomplete developer spread, etc. then I do have a bridge fo sake for you.
Well, Jim, you're not the only guy in this discussion who has used and remembers the 'real Polaroid' stuff. Soundly based on that, i am not even interested in giving this new stuff a try even if it would be on par with what Polaroid made.<br>I can't get excited about the resurrection of something i couldn't get excited about before it needed resurrecting. And going by your report, this still has to prove that it indeed is a resurrection of Polaroid's stuff, and not just a brave but failed attempt.<br>Hoping they fail? No. (Just not interested - and the OP asked). Wondering why they began this project though.
Not to invalidate anyone's statements, but I've used Polaroid film several times at school. We used it whenever shooting in studio settings or portrait setting even when outside with Medium Format or larger. Before we were using digital, it was THE way to check your lighting setup and exposures. I'm sure there are many people here who used it before? i thought it was pretty common.
To harp on a bit (sorry ;-) ) : You must then have noticed that Polaroid makes a very poor exposure meter. A very expensive one too. That's why people use exposure meters and cameras - even now that cameras have a little screen on the back - come with exposure meters inside. ;-) Contrast of Polaroid was such that it compared to a spot meter: you could only say with some confidence that the bit on the Polaroid that looked o.k. would be good on film (if you remembered that Polaroid's ISO and your film's ISO were not the same). So if you were in luck that the contrast of the entire scene was flat enough to make it onto the Polaroid relatively intact, you knew it would probably be fine. But not that you would get a good photo!<br>An exposure meter (how much do they cost per measurement?) would tell you too and do that better. And you needed one still. But an exposure meter would not give a little blurry image. And that was the entire attraction. Polaroid sucked as an exposure meter, but it gave you little previews.<br><br>I do concede though that when using flash lights without good, proportional modelling lights it was easy to get a bit scared. You couldn't see the results by just looking at the scene as you would be able to otherwise. But though you had to imagine the end result that exposure meter would still tell you all you needed to know. Then, having a Polaroid could be a confidence booster, yes.
I do concede though that when using flash lights without good, proportional modelling lights it was easy to get a bit scared. You couldn't see the results by just looking at the scene as you would be able to otherwise. But though you had to imagine the end result that exposure meter would still tell you all you needed to know. Then, having a Polaroid could be a confidence booster, yes.That's pretty much the way of it Q.G. I'm just saying it was pretty standard usage for polaroid, especially b/w. I didn't make this up. Usually when you bought a Hasselblad, you would generally also get a Polaroid back for it. It was a pretty standard procedure. Also, you could get a print off the pulled off negative portion of it. Not the same as a b/w negative film, but interesting though that's now why people were using Polaroid.
Barry, remember that glass plate in the Hasselblads Polaroid back? That was there to modify the film plane as a piece of
glass behind the lens will shift the plane 1/3rd the thickness of the glass. That is why you never want to use a filter behind
the lens. In Hasselblad's case it was to try to get sharper images with Polaroid film as it is impossible for Polaroid film in a
cartridge to lie properly in the film plane. So besides having totally different latitude as regular film it also was commonly
less then critically sharp.
Well... not quite, Barry. Memories are, of course, personal things, but i do not remember that as "standard usage".
Polaroid was a good pacifier. And i too had (still have) a clutch of Polaroid backs, because there were and are those people who just demand to have something simple to look at. Polaroid was a social tool, not a technical aid.
Polaroid could help in such situations the photographer wasn't sure (and - dare i say it? - that means did not trust himself to know how to use a meter ;-) ), as a confidence booster. But Polaroid was so different from real film that when it was really important to get things perfectly correct, a clip test was performed.
So (and this is what this is 'building up to') it is a too big leap from that "confidence booster" concession to "standard usage". Unless you mean that for some it was their standard usage of Polaroid, and not that it was the standard usage of Polaroid in general.
Not where I went to school Q.G. it had nothing to do with being a pacifier or providing something simple to look at. It was a tool. Its ok if your experience was different than mine, but where I was it was pretty standard for checking setups, ratios, etc. So, really, quite
In the good old days I remember type 55 being used mostly by artsy photographers.
My own personal favorite Polaroid was the 100 speed b&W, but almost no one else seemed to like it. At a reasonable price I would buy the 4x5 single sheet version of the 100 speed stuff, because I considered shooting it fun.
But as an aside about the people trying to develop this stuff, they are doing it out of love on a shoestring budget. The don't have millions for a development budget. If thousands of people donated money they must have a desire to use the stuff.
Me I would like to see 12x 4x5 film packs available, but only if it would not be more than twice the price of single sheets. Of course after putting out some feelers about that I came to realize that almost no one knows what I was talking about, the last was was sold in the mid-80's.
If only someone had invented a way to capture and view pictures near instantly that didn't cost anything other than the initial price of the apparatus. Maybe some sort of electronic device that allowed capturing an image and then displaying it on a miniature TV screen? Maybe even storing that image on some sort of electronic medium, a bit like an electronic negative?
Oh wait! I think there might be something like that available already.
No, there isn't, R.J.<br>The biggest you can go that way (ignoring the also not full frame scanning backs) is not even full frame medium format.<br>I must admit that i like to use (out of convenience) 6x9 or 6x12 formats on roll film behind a large format camera, but even those are far bigger than the available 4x5 cm contraptions.<br><br>And how would that give you a negative to print and a print?
it is obvious that from a quantitative point of view the quality of digital suffices yet everyone agrees there is an" artificial" appearance to it by which in HD everything looks a little bit " avatar"
Secondly convenience and what suffices ends up being boring to a certain portion of a market
at some point- consumism will make sure of that whether people actually need a new computer or not they tend to upgrade if only for lack of being motivated by something better.
What Salomon says about instant film as a viable commercial product is from the viewpoint as a justification by someone who marketed products. what he says is true.
But that is also what killed America.
One of my favorite films" Seabiscuit" at one point the lead role says something like" America the great depression- you could get anything you want in any color just as long as it was black. " I as a manufacturer add my two cents " you can get anything you want made in America just as long as you are willing to purchase( quantity) a lot more than you can ever use or ever need.
It is indeed appealing to those who have artistic interests because if only laziness and you can have a negative without having to learn then so be it.
I personal always hated the t55 prints and threw them out and sent all my negs to contact at the lab anyway but it doesn't bother me if people like the print.
Thirdly and again for artistic purposes digital is yes yes yes yes yes = it can be anything but what it cannot be is a first step which is unchangeable . that is a no
so film = yes familiarity= yes a certain quality = no it cant be everything= it can only be within parameter= parchment isn't= leather isn't = wood.
The metallic aspect of silver or platinum based photography has an unique tonal response which I have no doubt some day could be mimicked by digital presets and then I would have to concede that if some day there is a full frame 4x5 digital back then I could obtain the proportional qualities of realism which I find appealing and if it so happens to be that by then someone has perfected a digital preset which mimics these panchromatic films then I would not think twice.
With all this said only makes sense if ones artistic effort is sufficiently dedicated to justify the expense. meaning if your pictures are not well composed with digital and its free arguing spending money to not expect a better result is a silly argument.
But a great violin player can benefit from using a Stradivarius over a modern Japanese reproduction. there are some places where technology reached its peak before and so people go back when they realize sometimes what most believe is progress is actually digression.
Einstein realized everything is curbed( elliptic )from space to time to progress and therefore one would be wise to differentiate the technologies of consumism and convenience with the technologies to achieve excellence in art. they are not one and the same. and that the future will take us to what has been and to summarize you could say that what killed the American Dream was the nightmare which said one had to dispose of last years car and get " this years car" and at some point you realize things peak and then there is only one way things can go if they are to be different. Politics has this dichotomy.
In short yes for those who don't mind developing then they sell the same film at 2.00- a sheet
and I don't use 4x5 for everything but I do love it when it is justified.
Jim I think you are right about the evaluation you made.
In a few days Ill tell you what I think of the business model
Happy New year to all
One more relevant response ; Salomon made two detractive observations in regard to the professionalism of the product.
The issue isn't the product. nobody is going to ask for a refund on a Gaugin or the Mona Lisa because the brushstrokes are not invisible and or seamless.
The issue is the mindset of people who live to research versus what is considered professionalism in business.
Anyone who ever received medical care at a university Hospital by students will confirm That its going to take way longer bumpy raw and unapologetic because they'll tell you that if you want fast to go elsewhere.
All of the esoteric disclosure on what took 7 years is of no interest to professional photographers- it may interest science enthusiasts.- not professional photographers.
Bob is correct that professional photographers want to know what is available - when and how much
On the other hand the current technical difficulties are not an issue.
To know what is available and continuity is.
Which two remarks?
That the ISO varies?
That the developer doesn't spread evenly?
That it isn't usable in the field?
That they are selling prototypes?
The current technical difficulties are indeed very much an issue.<br>Yes, if what the product is capable of is exactly what you are hoping for, it is exactly what you need and you will not complain about it not conforming to your "mindset". But that is begging the question. Leonardo might have asked for a refund if a brush he bought had been such that it did not allow him to do what he wanted to do with it, and which would have been expected of any decent brush.<br>This product is rather limited in what it can be used for. And people who expect and want someone else can't be dismissed that easily as you think as either people who do not have the proper "mindset" nor as people who should be happy to buy a tool that does not work and be happy anyway because it's just a tool still in the making and we have to allow for that. Why would we have to allow for that? Makes no sense. Yes, we know that it is something that is available. We also know what it can, but mostly cannot do. And we do not want it if it can't help us do what we want. It is a very much an issue that it can't.<br>So let them experiment and develop the product and present it when it is a capable product. Before that, they should perform their tests in the privacy of their labs and at their own costs.
It is my position that people should indeed support this effort but conditionally. It has been 7 years and he had to go learn how to materialize this when it had been successfully done since 1947.
I'm sure the difficulties are not imaginary but when you go down a path you need to know what
it will take to get to the finish line at the onset- they didn't. still don't entirely.
With this said Type 55 was something you shot on location and developed bk at the studio. that isn't a problem.
The uneven spreading of the development is characteristic of Polaroid process. I'm sure it will improve but appears satisfactory enough to me at present.
The print as I said was only a hint of what the negative was about to me so makes no difference to me .
The only reason these things are disclosed in an alarming manner is as I said again because
the person doing it is used to speaking about research which is what he cares about- not a business person who would have empathy towards what the user needs to hear.
In this case the use is artistic so the issues are not as critical in stage one as you say. they are only critical because as you can see he doesn't understand that if it were a restaurant you keep the cooking in the kitchen and you let the customers enjoy their meal.
So yes there is an obvious unprofessionalism in the lack of separation of these issues but as far as I am concerned its poor presentation but still feel the product should be supported conditional to the enterprise assuming a business posture that users can rely on and they the research bloggy channel has to go backstage or one has to assume the audience will be crash test dummies for cameras and film instead of Pro's.
The product itself at present is in better shape than how they present it. In my opinion that is not the problem.
I think you're quite wrong, William, in thinking that because the use is (supposedly) artistic the issues are not as critical. That would only be so if the artist thinks it artistic to be nonchalant about the way his art turns out. You compare this to cooking: it would be as if a cook thinks he cooks well, is an artist even, because he has no control about how much pepper his pepper mill dispenses.<br>There is a lack of professionalism in presenting a product that is not ready for use by anyone who cares about the result. It is also not o.k. to suggest that thinking this a problem is merely showing that you're not artistic enough, because 'artists' are above that. That's nonsense.<br><br>About the original not being perfect: that's right. It's the reason why even if this present product were as good as the original Polaroid, there would still not be any reason to get excited about it. And as it is, we're still talking about a far from perfect copy of something that wasn't good to begin with. So "excited"? Not in the least. Ready and willing to support the effort? Ditto: not in the least.
You of course are entitled to your opinion. perfection is a relative consideration .
I can tell you that I was assistant to Andy Warhol- Helmut Newton- Peter Beard and others and have received responses on this matter directly from most of the most prominent photographers of the 20th century and also made cameras for many of them.
All who agree Polaroid 55 was the choice negative for artistic pursuit despite other negatives being free of error and funky effects. and so that is a perfection in such regard.
I am glad you have such clarity on your choice.
So how would they have liked it if that Polaroid could not be trusted to give a result that was not "free of error and funky effects"?
Gee, William, I was involved with famous photographers too. Mary Ellen Mark, Richard Avedon, John Sexton, Bruce
Davidson and many others where this was not a topic of conversation, never saw any using 55. Also were involved with
many of the studios shooting our ads as well as commercial studios and they looked at chromes, not Polaroids.
William, your line of reasoning, that ARTISTS do not care about how things are and what you can do with them, is rather (and i'll phrase this with considerable restraint) mistaken.
No you are correct. Once I have finished my shoot for Vogue I can put on the nerd hat
and be curious about nerdy stuff. But while in photographer mode I'm curious about the subject- not lighting-not cameras-not film . Me and my clients care about how things
work. they work so we can work
If you care how things work you are agreeing with me, William. I think you're much too preoccupied with being an ARTIST to understand that caring about how things work is what artists do.<br>Now go finish your shoot for Vogue.
Sir no one can do all at the same time concurrently. When a photographer picks up a camera he cares it will work in the sense of facilitating his work a tool . at such time I care it works as it should. same goes for a film. artists are people who care that tools work as they should when they should and that is at the decisive moment which isn't the time to be distracted on why how or how come. yes i have spent a lifetime preoccupied to the extent of having made a camera that requires that you know less how it works because it works as have my peers defending such freedom from nuisance and distraction. and when its all said and done I am interested in discussing how things work but after I have perfected them otherwise why would i lecture instead of correcting the problem. ? The relevant point is before you teach you might want to get into work first?
The relevant point, William, is that the current product appears to be rather all over the place as far as what it does and how it handles is concerned. "people who care that tools work as they should when they should".
So can you, William, get excited about this product?
Yes I can get exited about the product because I am a photographer.
before I'm curious in the scientific of a film and the film works well enough to use and that is what photographers care about.
If my niece picks up my iPhone and accidentally takes the best photo ever . then she knows not how the contraption works but for an instant became the best photographer ever. I on the other hand know a little bit about how the phone works and it does interest me but the interest doesn't make me a photographer but a photography enthusiast.
As I said the problem with the effort is the cook doesn't understand the audience who is both interested and can be interesting work and of interest and what interests him is the scientific which of course isn't done and never is.
And for those who want crystal clear negs I know this lab in Miami who has agreed to offer
20 sheets develop and contact BW or color for 2.00 a sheet.
he's one of the best labs ever . I'm exited about that too.
darkroom and digital is the name.
randi Rosenthal mitchell
Lets get something clear. the price is ridiculous because the business model is ridiculous.
If the guy says 85x5 shots = Kickstarter and then the price comes down it is still ridiculous but on a short term basis.
The other day someone asked about that and his response was the prices will remain unchanged for a long time.
I have and have had the people who would invest in this so it doesn't have to be made like moonshine but from having followed this from the onset what I get is the guy chose this model because this way;
he didn't know how to go from A to B and wants you to pay for it - get patents for what he didn't know how to and then the icing on the cake is = keep the shares .
Lets not forget the 55 went belly up while all the tech was available so perhaps rushing to
be perfect before rolling up the curtain was not a good idea.
So to me this whole research approach on the road most travelled and "NEW" is only new to him. What is "NEW" and unprecedented is the way he's positioning himself that he has to be given an entire business operation before he can" save The Polaroid" . and that is why all the focus on what still needs to be done. As those who care about pictures will use it and don't care about the derogatory admissions ( me being one of them) but by being alarmist he can keep getting funded instead of having to share the pie with an investor. At least that is how I see it.
"[...] and the film works well enough to use and that is what photographers care about." really good to see that you have changed your mind, William.
So returning to the product itself: the thing about this film is that it can't be trusted to work as expected. And that what we could expect if we could anyway is certainly not (yet?) "good enough".
Issues about business models and pricing are relatively unimportant, but given that the product isn't a product, but merely an attempt at such to begin with, they ad insult to injury. Not excited.
William, you do know that the main reason that Polaroid ended up going out of business is because the owner of Polaroid
was arrested for running a Ponzi scheme, all of his businesses were used to try to repay his scammed victims, all were
liquidated and he is in Federal prison. It isn't as simple as 55 just going away!
Bob that was a Ponzi scheme. This new one is so fresh it could be called a" Fonzi" scheme.
And that is why my position is that De Bakker is right that it isn't perfect yet but I still feel the product deserves support but as I said conditional to a commitment to stop lecturing while you say it needs work and go do the work. and then that the so called support translates in reciprocity in the form of price stability and sensible prices so it can actually survive .
Yes, it needs a lot of work. But that is not an excuse for them charging people, a lot of money, to be the testers. Until it is
a proven product it should be withdrawn from sale. If they need users to test it during its development then they should
supply it a no cost to testers. If they really had resources behind them they would send it to testers, have them sign non-
disclosure agreements and pay them for their testing time and efforts. Then they could present a working, reliable product to the market and justify the price.
The age for those rules went out with the necessity. I still believe that it is fair to support someone willing to make something available when no one else is.
But the support has to be reciprocal so that the investment will translated two fold
B) reasonable pricing
so yes I do believe it is fair to support it if the support is directed at making the product viable for the user.
On the other hand if the extra costs are a means to allow this guy to learn what he doesn't know- build himself a factory- obtain patents for what he didn't know- unprecedented lol- lecture about what he says doesn't yet work-all of the above time wasting is the biggest expense of all. time is money ....7 years.....then keep the shares and then in turn keep prices
high on an ongoing basis I would say no way José unless they send me a free " fool" decal for my forehead because in such model the film isn't saved - he is and whatever you've saved will go to his account .
Whether the actual costs are higher or the return expectations are higher or whether the planning is poor makes no difference to me.
So my suggestion is we should support this in exchange for a commitment for light at the end of the tunnel .Otherwise after 7 years It seems the lack of momentum stems from focus on research per se versus research towards practical use and if this weren't true then
I would say beyond hopeless in the business side of things.
William, having a test phase to perfect a product is a very common practice today. Name one, just one, company that
does it the way these people are trying to do it. That one is for a company that actually brought a viiable, working product
to the market.
Zero! I agree this infuriates me as everyone agrees its infantile and after 7 years I'm at a loss for words.
That is why I feel the support should be conditional to a commitment to get off charity and run this as a business.
But while everything always makes sense on paper the fact remains that the so called " product" is no longer a necessity per se and so has to be supported in part. Those who are interested in it should.
So bottom line is we all agree the business model makes no sense- we should expect it does soon and in the meantime people who feel like playing with it wont get too hurt by an occasional expense. 55 got up to 600.00 for a box of 20 after discontinuation . my friend sold several cases at that price. Right now New 55 is about equiv 300.00 for a box of 20.
They could consider doing +crowd funding on the side instead of discouraging users
someone's exited lol
This picture I took with the old T55. the new one seems more saturated and richer tone with more blacks and that is something I can get exited about because I like plate photography look but hate the iso speed.
On the other hand the new film has a tonal range more similar to this other shot and a range I prefer more
I would love to see more examples from those who have already tested it
My experience with P/N 55 was in a laboratory setting. It was convenient and efficient to have a small positive print that you could tape into a lab notebook for documentation and a negative for making prints for publication or further analysis. At the time, I shot 4x5 black and white as an amateur landscape photographer (I still use my 4x5 Wista occasionally), but even back then, I could not justify the cost of P/N versus Tri-X or Tmax or Ilford Delta film. Now, digital has completely taken over in lab settings and EXIF information provides the necessary documentation. So, the lab setting justification for P/N film has completely disappeared.
lab justification disappeared and so did the labs lol
definition justification disappeared as necessity due to digital
And on tripod justification was the requirement for definition and that has also disappeared
What cannot disappear is the properties of projection of large format which are appealing to some
smaller formats cannot make these proportions appear as the lens too close to the plane.
And after this long the old audience moved on so disappeared in a way
But with all that said there is a need for it for artistic pursuit
And now for a little humor lol
type"exited" into the photo.net search box the results will show we are the first parade to hit main St in a long time lol.
Maybe that is why some say this sounds like buyagra or = buy aggravation
And how about "excited"?
Subject: IS EVERYONE EXCITED THAT POSITIVE/ NEGATIVE FILM IS BACK ?
Starting a new thread? ;-)
No but if I did I would call it " New English" or Littman English haha.
Can someone explain this?
Recently Bob Crowley stated that there was a problem with New55 New 55 film in that the rollers of the 545 have to be re tensioned
but the fact is the new film is minus the parchment edges which formed the type 55 borders( the main reason people liked the film and which Crowley refers as Polatrash.
whatever the case may be that is obviously the width missing and the lessened tension.
folks this is obviously not the theory of everything but the theory of everything made up as it goes along
What credibility is there to such scientific ensuing excuses?
As it was I who started this thread I must admit that excitement has turned to concern.
I do not know how many of you follow the progress of this project over the last 7 years but I was amazed to learn a couple of days ago that while the original supporters of the 2015 crowdfunding who0 were promised specific allocations " in case they succeed" are being made to wait for their rewards while you can pay now and receive their current 5 sheet for 85.00 package. One resigned supporter recently posted" it was either a choice of waiting or not getting it at all".
After reading a recent disclosure ref the allocation of the funds of the crowdfunding it seems the cost of elapsed time in rent and related costs is one of the highest costs. to which I add Bob Crowley has declared recently the price would not come down in a long time.
In short there has already been a retraction of assurance to the original supporters and as per the opinions of posters here this monochrome film has yet a long way to go and what amazed me was the posting of an intention to now start with New55 color two days ago film because Fuji 100c is being discontinued and so it may be the right time.
When you don't have the cards to play one hand " the extent of the knowledge which still requires extensive experimentation or the cash to back it up" what you have is a bluff.
When you don't have the cash to back up a single hand of poker you can not open yet a substantialy more extensive new deck and ask us to pay for it - keep writing blank checks.
I would assume as would anyone reasonable that " hwen we succeed" would equate to a viable film and a viable manufacture and distribution at a viable price"
None of these factors are true yet.
So my first question would be why 400.000 as a number for the original crowdfunding?
400g is more attractive than the actual amount needed and frankly they still don't know how much they need since they are tinkering reverse engineering or experimenting .
View camera magazine director Steve Simmons recently posted that this project has refused to provide samples of their product for review and I assure the project has refused to provide samples to me so I could have it tested by the worlds most renowned which would have resulted in great exposure ( free).
So what has been referred to in articles as" Bob Crowley's irreverence" is in my opinion nothing other than 1) someone getting irritated when their bluff is called .
2) as there is in my opinion substantial confirmation the purpose of the project is to serve as a promotion for Crowley's inventiveness and place him in a 0plateau as an opinion leader I will provide an analogy so as to shed some light on this scenario.
I don't know if all of you are aware that when Nikola Tesla immigrated into the US he was immediately hired by Thomas Edison.
Shortly after Tesla showed his drafts ref alternating current t5o Edison who went ballistic now fearing Tesla as a competitor and going to0 extensive lengths to discredit Tesla and AC as a Quack and dangerous respectively.
As you know AC prevailed.
Crowley was very interested at the onset in the mystique and cult like following obtained by the LITTMAN but a few months later and without going into detail a similar situation as between Edison and Tesla developed and from that point on his project seems aimed at people aged in their 30s and where every opinion or fact has to repackaged as" NEW".= "HIS".
A couple of months ago I posted that any further support for this project would have to be conditional toa specific goal as I suspected that otherwise he would keep moving the " if we succeed " bar further and us fools have to fund it.
Now its not a suspicion but fact.
I do not believe there is an intent to defraud - instead there is a mystifying of a final goal as justifying any and all sacrifice which most people refer to as demagoguery and by which there can be no victims when a goal so uplifting is expected to be shared by all....
I assume that 400.000 could have been 25 or 50% of all large format photography budget for 2015.
and so this what is obviously unprofessional compulsive and aimless is a risk not only to those who invest but to any and all related support services .
I think we should be told if the monochrome is being saved for us our children or our grandchildren and secondly if the price is expected to remain at 18.00 per shot for a long time surely no one can expect most people would buy it in continuation so there is no light at the end of the tunnel to be expected when someone sets higher goals which consume funds and resources one does not have while one doesn't even have the" all "the experience ( which is the biggest cause of time related expenses and costly errors".
I am reluctant to give up on this entirely as I do have a nostalgic attachment to an specified expectancy and in no way tied to a whatever or whenever fantasy.
But the time has come to remember a film is a service - it has to have continuity- it has to be viable - it has to be affordable
What we have seen is not exactly that but instead 7 years have elapsed with sporadic testing's which look more esoteric than scientific and manufacture settings which look more Willy Wonka than professional and then there is the so called irreverence....
In closing I invite the supporters to continue to do so but strictly on a conditional basis otherwise I am afraid this will be nothing more than an ongoing nuisance and distraction .
New development/ color new55 new 55
The relevant aspects of Polaroid type peel apart films are neither many nor rocket science
THE COATED PAPER THAT YIELDS A PRINT
THE PARCHMENT PAPER WHICH ACTS AS A SPACER AND DEVELOPMENT CONTAINER
THE FILM HOLDER AKA 545 550 CB-103 ETC
Folks please accept my apologies but there is noting else to this. Nothing!!!
here is what I have been able to verify as to New55 handling of the only relavant issues to the process
1)the ROLLERS: doesn't get it
Bob Crowley claimed last year that the rollers had lost spring tension over the years and an interference with their expected results.
fact is the new55 results prove the materials are already subjected to too much roller pressure due to incorrect thicknesses.
2)THE NEGATIVE Doesn't get it
atomic x seems to be a good choice for emulsion but type 55 was much thinner acetate as all polapan films were and all peel apart negatives require thin acetate so roller pressure can do its job
3) THE EMULSION Seems like a good choice
4) THE DEVELOPER they have the tech from John Reuter for more than 2 years now.
5) THE PACKET they don't get it
polaroid sheet film packet was paper thin so as to allow rollers to spread the developer
6) THE COATING of the PRINT they don't get it
Polaroid peel apart print coating are applied semi dry and approximate a film emulsion much like
printer photographic paper, you cannot expose paper to liquids and expect it not to swell and you can not
expect liquefied solutions can dry to be even coatings and instead will have a fisheye look to the grain.
To summarize as you can read in the exchange of questions and answers on the NEW55 Facebook page
the research commenced 7 years ago and when I confronted Crowley on the fact the packet thickness seemed to interfere with developer spreading. when the arbitrary discarding of the parchment frame he labeled polatrash is causing that not enough developer stays applied during process. when roller spring tension is blamed for inadequate development when in fact since polaroid develops from light to dark it is obvious to anyone that there is too much roller tension and the developer is squeezed out from the areas with ghostly patterns. when they have had the developer formulas for at least 2 years now and when the coating being liquefied cannot be expected appropriate for a print paper I have to conclude that these being the only relevant researches which should interest a manufacturer were arbitrarily approached with no base to reason being the process utilizes existing holders and rollers and there is virtually very little that can change if it is going to work.
The question therefore isn't whether this can be done as Crowley states but whether he has the willingness to do it instead of postponing and complicating what is very simple as he keeps reminding everyone" this is important"
Important would be that a reliable viable film would be made available without the side show and at a fair price.
Fuji did that- Polaroid did that . Do you know the names of anyone who was involved in making those films? No you don't and that is the importance sought and why this will not progress IMHO while what is very simple and cannot be done that differently is a wild card by someone who needs to get noticed .
I hope things will change but as time goes by all I hear are self congratulatory " we are the only people making instant films"
In short to claim innovation Crowley needed to first recreate the original process in regard to thicknesses because unless he makes new holders and rollers there is virtually no space to change anything
Secondly since after 7 years he obviously doesn't get it and adds that research is risky and exploratory
and I add only because the old process is belittled but in not taking that as a starting point misleads supporters when he is using the old product to have people send him money and whatever results are obtained having started from an arbitrary decision dictate that you don't know what zero error is .
Zero error in a camera would be when you have calibrated the infinity stop in a camera.
it couldn't sit anywhere else.
in every aspect of a process there is a zero error and to know that you have to start where others left off.
In short I think this will not be nothing but I doubt it can became consistent fairly priced or be available without going thru hoops and endless self congratulatory excuses.
I will still support it as I believe in miracles the film needs none the makers need many.
Why would be exited rather then possibly excited?
haha yes Bob excited
visit the page announcement from may 9th on the color film and let me know what you think of the guys responses
I'm not impressed with his products.
Understandably so . but we have gotten past that point which is obvious to anyone except those who don't care either way and find this going around in circles is a fun and exciting journey .
You may have heard of the law of attraction?
The guy finds going around in circles indefinitely as being what is important and a quest and he has found an audience which in choosing the interest in the instant film itself and loving it as what makes photography cool is excited by being part of a journey of claimed discovery which is unnecessary as per what I explain below yet I would agree but Atomic x as a wet film seems promising yet when used as part of an instant film process the negative acetate would have to have the same thickness as type 55 did the packet thickness and stiffness would have to be the same as type 55 and the print thickness would have to be the same as they are using Polaroid rollers and the intermediate parchment frame would have to be present.
Then finally the print coating serves as a receiver of the positive image but also serves in acting as if a sponge during development to hold developer in place so that both the negative and the print remain evenly moist. When the process of coating is done with a liquefied suspension which has to then dry... firstly it cannot dry as if an even surface sort of what happens when you expose salt water to sunlight and therefore absorption is uneven and secondly as the surface has been created by drying it has lost part of its absorption characteristics.
In the color print on instant films which has the feel like a photographic paper it takes a considerable amount of time to dry after peeled and the black and white takes less . nevertheless the range of moisture absorption capability of these coatings is something which needs to be rated as you can rate a film speed and which cannot be" whatever".
So I am also not impressed for obvious reasons and would have as you just ignored it if this wasn't whet he keeps reminding us" the only company producing instant peel apart films" and which is moving forward funded by a promise to recreate a beloved film and instead has gone on an arbitrary route where it is claimed he has shown is capable of yet ended up with " extra parts" after reassembly which he claims were polatrash and after 7 years and perhaps a lot more that 400.000 in expenditures what I get from him is an evasive non commitment that this will irreverently continue on this path.
I surely am not impressed by this and certainly don't want to be the guy who has to end up caught in a stuck elevator with an alley cat that is certain to claw you if you as much as dare challenge the pedigree or in this case the logic .... the point is the only reason I even got an answer was because I confronted him where he had to respond otherwise as most people don't care and these supporters are " too new " to know better" this would have just continued as if the journey to find the finish line which he has gone past and didn't notice because he is looking for glory and not doing what is both simple and cut and dry and IMHO the only thing that will work. And now at least I know what I can expect
at nearly 20$/exposure
how can anyone but people with
wheelbarrows full of $$$ be excited ?
sure, it is exciting this film exists again
but that is about it ..
J Nanian thank s for the response.the point when I first asked the question
Was I found justified paying more now if that would lead to a reasonable price.
Bob Crowley stated recently the price will remain unchanged for a long time.
Secondly as per my recent posts addressing my discussion on the tech aspects on his new 55
Facebook page the film does not actually exist now unless you are someone who thinks torpedoing your work onto a canvas
That looks as if an ink bomb was detonated is cool or anyone else will think it's cool. Just out of curiosity I checked the profiles of those who look at
and their pictures are as if film tests not what I consider photographers and you might find a comment on a posted image;now here is a fun shot of
Mildred....inNew55 and the girl looks stiff as a board and with an expression which suggests she either has a migrane or feels likea guinea pig
So those who look for a diversion from true photography demands seem excited with those results and then comment someting like"if the new color film will
look like that im in!!!".I suggested they recommend users shoot Atomic x until the New55 problems was sufficiently resolved but it seems that audience in
being aimless enjoys the project x approach and easy prey for someone looking to stay funded on what as per his responses is clearly
"THE ROAD TO NOWHERE" the film comes with a few fat joints or extasy pills.
My position is to invite people to useAtomix x but the New55 currently is as if using a pre exposed or a film in a camera with light leaks.
Finally if you read my exchange with Crowley ref the announcement on May 9th on the new color film I can't hope for a reasonable resolution
To existing problems as the approach imho is entirely arbitrary.
Correction:should have read" must come with a few fat joints or ecstasy pills "
And J Nanian the most relevant point you bring up is precisely that those plunging ALL their money into this don't have
wheelbarrows of cash but instead are twenty to thirty year olds who should be working on the quality of their portfolios instead of saying
they will pour as much cash into this as they are able to while the maker remains shamelessly non commited to doing what is simple
and obviously the only resolution the process can accept if it is going to work well.
In a comparison the Woman ex President of Argentine government was indicted last week of having gained a two term presidency after
having claimed to have a lawyers degree. Not only did she qualify for higher pay but claiming extensive knowledge of the law was
successful in pushing forward several constitutional reforms and making constant reminder to her fake degree she was able to overcome
the Senate and congress objections.
Then as you can read online she stole hundreds of millions and everything else down to thefurnitue of the presidential palace.
In this case this project started 7years ago and the guy gained support on a knowledge experience and inventiveness which
does not exist 7years later.
Im not prepared at this time to use a legal term to describe what has occurred in this project but it is clear the guy is not an expert
on anything photographic and that people are being misled
at close to $20 / pop im excited that other people are wealthy enough to be able to afford
this sort of fun. i'd rather buy silver nitrate, NaCl, KBr and coat my own with the limited resources
Thanks for sharing the excitement J.
on the other hand I would not be excited if the cost of 00001 yielded a negative which looks like its been hit by a torpedo previous to exposure.
I invite the supporters of this project to instead buy an equal amount of Atomic x as you would spend on New55 and so have a chance your work doesn't look stupid and will make the film look good too. Once the New55 is worthy of your work then you should of course use it until then you become a crash test dummy for film and if that is your quest then so be it,
not really excited, but interested that another product has
made it back to the marketplace and kind of amazed that anyone would spend $20 an exposure
on a sheet of 4x5 film just because they can.
no clue what your negative-comments have to do with anything. it is just as easy to take terrible photographs
using materials that cost $20 with and a boutique developer vs. materials that cost 100x less than that.
in 35+ years, i've noticed that usually people who spend lots of $$ on materials or equipment insist that no matter how terrible their results
are, they are blind to that and insist their results are "great" because of the expense involved.
at close to $20 / pop im excited that other people are wealthy enough to be able to afford this sort of fun. i'd rather buy silver nitrate, NaCl, KBr and coat my own with the limited resources i have.Where did you get $20.00? I’m intrigued by the New55 product and just bought a box, and the print/negative cost came to about $13.00. Not cheap by any means, but nowhere near the $20.00 you’re throwing out.
You disapprove of the price so do I.
Let's settle that!
On ther hand if the product was good or I felt they were on a realistic road to solving the problems on the way to a realistic price I would find the temporary
expenditure in the form of support justified.
I dont believe thats the case and which has to do with everything as that is the only true role of the makers of 55.
Making an assessment of that isnt negativity but required imho especially when you say people would feel its better because it costs more.
I plan on supporting the project despite my disagreeing with the dysfunction but financially and will not use the film until reasonably certain it wont ruin my
pictures as it is not better.
I will use Atomic x in the meantime.
Contrary to your perception I believe those 20-30 year olds using it while being blind to the blotchy backgrounds arent motivated by the cost but have found a
purpose in the reactivation of the film and which they should seek in their work instead but in feeling included it can generate a high and if the creative
devotion and ambition arent sufficiently clear and which is hard at that age it isn't hard to get diverted from your course.
I can give the idiotic and vitriolic distraction over the conversion issue versus why would it be justified in the first place if not to take better pictures?
In such case too those who got sucked into that also became engaged in being camera crash test dummies versus working mostly on better pictures.
So yes in NO case is an expenditure justified unless you get better results being that you can shoot digital without a per shot expense .
And last but not least it is also not negative to address the fact that the product isnt back!
Type55 had great borders-New55 borders suck!
The image cannot be free of development blotches and therefore looks like an experiment by beginers.
Atomic x doesnt have these problems.
When new55 reaches that stage I will agree the product is back
And finally because of the approach taken versus what the process actually requires I do not believe
this will lead to a reliable product with a realistic price.
Atomic x on the other hand I find as something everyone could trust their best work to.
Where did you get $20.00? I’m intrigued by the New55 product and just bought a box, and the print/negative cost came to about $13.00. Not cheap by any means, but nowhere near the $20.00 you’re throwing out.hi jim
sorry for the confusion,
i said close to $20 an exposure and nearly $20 a pop, i know it doesn't cost $20 an exposure
but close enough that it puts it beyond my interest or reach ...
the way i came up with "close to $20 "
according to the new55 website that sells it, a 5 sheet box for 75$ + shipping
(new55-film dot myshopify dot com)
the shipping cost distributed to the 5 sheets in the box
comes out to $15+ whatever the shipping is ...
seems a bit more than your 13$, you got a pretty good deal in any case.
no idea where you are located, but i don't have a local place that sells it, within a 3 hour drive
so no matter who i purchase it from its going to include shipping fees ...
i have the same point of view about a lot of things having to do with large format photography.
shooting 8x10 chromes, sure i can do it, but at close to $35-40 an exposure
do i want to spend that much money on a 8x10 chrome?
do i really need a camera body or lens that combined cost $10,000?
nope, i'd rather spend my $$ other things ..
if others want to have fun with that stuff, good for them !
where did you get your 55 from ?
I agree that people are not obligated by any rules when using stuff and I also hope anyone has fun any which way they want. reading from the responses everyone perceives this based on their own intended use or appreciation so I'm not hoping we can agree nor do I seek that. While I'm older than when I was using 55 everyone I know thinks using reliable films is fun paying more is a lot less fun and can see why some people can have no concern as to whether the film performs when it enables them to get noticed as being involved in this " quest for the missing link" where maybe otherwise their use of perfectly functioning wet films would not allow them to get noticed.
this unfortunately affects all perception on todays internet and the main motivator for me starting this thread
where did you get your 55 from ?From New55. I get email updates from the company and it’s not unusual for them to offer discounts. I took advantage of a 20% discount just the other day. The last box I bought was last fall and I’m curious how the film has improved since then (there’s a 2.0 version out now). I’ll find out this weekend.
From New55. I get email updates from the company and it’s not unusual for them to offer discounts. I took advantage of a 20% discount just the other day. The last box I bought was last fall and I’m curious how the film has improved since then (there’s a 2.0 version out now). I’ll find out this weekend.thanks .. i didn't know they were offering discounts and specials.
i'm not on FB or any sort of mailing list.
have fun shooting.
The print has improved in sharpness over the first generation but the developer appears to have a blotchy and uneven spread on both print and negative. some who expose for darker exposures have better results as the darker backgrounds mask these errors better.
but my biggest question regarding the recent announcement for a color test run which BTW sold out in 48 hs....
What I don't understand and really would like to if these materials are trimdowns from 20 x 24 made in 2009 or earlier what would be learned versus just shooting some expired t59 where you wouldnt get the spread problems ? and the materials being of the correct thickness would allow for a proper result.
How would the assembly of the materials with improper thicknesses and hereby demonstrated shortcomings justify wasting what you imply is the only available "short run"?
It seems to me the apparent premature ejection appears to be no cause for rejection for those who claim to love but their pictures look a lot like premature ejection except the spelling varies slightly .I think with a little assessing of the necessary corrections it could be justified as even you are saying it is sort of pointless when you clarify it isn't intended as a tease.
If it not a tease and doesn't address the obvious issues then it's yet another waste of time?
In other words I posed this question before this was actually offered considering the biggest problem the company has is doesn't have enough hands and this funding would tie them up arguably at a higher time expenditure than what they can collect.
finally as the testing of improperly assembled materials which are neither the final product and not actually made by them doesn't enable them to determine anything and as this offer was made to determine the extent of the potential interest I have to reiterate " how could you establish the extent of a potential interest when the test run is as per the pre test guarantee to yield defective results? "
So my conclusion and concern is the ensuing pointless wasting of time which is " money" and admittedly the biggest obstacle and as I reiterate IMHO the function of the company is to attempt to solve problems to work with existing Polaroid restrictions but instead keep coming up with these ensuing Preliminary evaluations which are obviously pointless and absorb any possible income ... it is on these grounds that I believe the supporters need to politely ask for a more business like approach otherwise IMHO this will continue to move forward as a dysfunctional codependency and lets not forget that Fuji and Polaroid films were discontinued because of low sales while they were relatively inexpensive and worked perfectly. that is not the case here so these guys need to start making commitments instead of flipping coins
It seems cost is blamed for people liking things or vice versa. Atomic x costs less and is better I hope people wont loose sight of that. Digital is a free per shot cost and so far is also better than New55.
here is a shot taken with old 55
Now in the case of the Littman camera detractors alleged people thought it was better because it cost more.
Supporters proved it cost more because it consistently aided in the production of more spontaneous imagery
I am very clear on my position I don't spend a dime unless something is better or facilitates things
finally as the testing of improperly assembled materials which are neither the final product and not actually made by them ...according to former kodak employees, the original 55 film was not assembled or manufactured by polaroid, but kodak. kodak had to show the folks at polaroid how to do it. it is too bad they can't hire some former kodak employees to explain to them how to do it, all over again. it might save them trouble and the aggravation of releasing products that people are confounded by.
if i was 20-30 working on my portfolio, i wouldn't buy expensive materials that don't deliver, unless the negative delivers, but it has to be fixed in the darkroom from what i read, so it really isn't "instant" but monobath developed in a sleeve. a streaky\blotchy positive print might also mean a streaky\negative ... which isn't much better and would mean either it "worked" or its a lot of photoshop editing to fix the problems inherent in the product.
J Nanian Bravo!
You got the whole scenario !
It isn't that they can't hire knowledgeable people!
I spoke to Bob Crowley before this started at length
and he considers himself a gifted inventor and wants
To be credited for the rescue and for making it in a New Way.
His dogma literally" Us inventors get the benefit of the patent
Rights in exchange for showing the world how to do it"
The problem with someone trying to be Moses while
Not actually appointed by god or having the epiphanies streaming
And without any real expertise is all you get is bluff and irreverence
As the only way to justify it all.
You are correct. None of this is new.
It is just new to him!
Once he figures it out ...if that happens he
Expects to file or has filed for patents on
What he has no idea how to make it work.
That being so overtly obvious is indeed "A NEW LOW"
So you see it is perfectly justified that we are all stuck
In the desert waiting or feel deserted waiting for him
To find a way to stop pretending this is difficult and just
do what was done previously.
Ferrari doesn't make tires= Pirelli does.
Doesnt make seats=reccaro does. So on and so forth.
There isnt any difficulty finding an
Architect to design a house and he probably if smart can subcontract
A contractor to build it.
Now what happens if somehow your best friend who is very convincing
Decides that designing your house and then building it is to
Become his midlife crisis challenge?
Well he charms you with idealism and you write a fat check
Then sometime goes by and he comes back with a scruffy
Diy scale model which isn't sound and which doesnt warrant
By now slightly frustrated you ask?
I thought you knew how to do this?
You find out he is actually going to school
So to speak as convinced schools are old
stuff and he needs to hit the jackpot by winning
the nobel price without having done the legwork.
This need not take forever
cost a fortune
Or have to go thru hoops.
You can order it all
Its all jotted down in maps called patents
And shouldn't cost the consumer more than
20% over the cost of regular film.
The problem withv all that is nobody would have given him inventiveness credit
And questionable what incentives may exist in buying something for a buck and selling
It for two when the demand is questionable.
And then the Narcissism where you presume to teach what you are yet to learn
And keep asking people to use a defective product which hurts their work shows the extent of
we live in strange times, and the internet hasn't helped
That is in what refers to New55.
But my purpose for starting this thread was not destructive- the facts are not encouraging imho but again
Atomic X provides the type of negative desired and without a more laborious effort than clearing Type 55 therefore I believe as may most of those who sought type 55 as a work tool that what was desirable has been accomplished.
the fact that New55 is only marketing this film to fund " research".... doesn't mean it isn't valid for photographers to use for their own photo research and work .
If at some point new55 becomes as good as using Atomic x then users can decide if the dual purpose will justify the extra expenditure .
For my purpose what is desirable is already available and whether New 55 will reach the same degree of performance and desirability is up to the film manufacturer .
the " instant" has its value as a novelty for an audience who is moved by such.
I belong to an audience which seeks a negative of sufficient clarity so as to facilitate pictures which
an educated consumer and an editorial readership will find moving and compelling.
it is on these grounds that I invite fellow photographers to go ahead and use what is viable despite
having to step over all of this type of debris for the reasons I have reiteratively explained.
and then again this may be something which is entirely not up your alley and which is fine too.
Haha yes you hit the nail right on the head again .
Just look at the presidential race where everyone is disapointed of having to choose between the best of the bad answers.
Ten years ago we woudnt be having this discussion with so much
dysfunction you would just pass on the whole thing but justv as in politics
"Nothing" is not an available choice so I find myself having to step in and figure out
What can be salvaged in terms of utility.
But I agree that without the internet things would be a lot less strange
as it seems before you can do anything you need approval from anyone who has internet access
And under such setting its like taking the power away from those qualified or whose interest qualifies them as
Users when there is such competition that what you like or dislike gets a nod.
People are doing really stupid things just to get attention .proof is that the only type of occurrence nobody can ignore is mass violence
And so the attention certainly perpetuates it.
The same can be true when the internet can be like a drug and people too often loose sight of their business objectives after spending most of
their time mystifying and inciting and judging by what happened this weekend
Half in favor and half against.
Thats strange enough
1. Atomic X can be bought elsewhere. its not an exclusive product.
2. they should offer an affordable 400 iso-print-pack. 8 usd/pic. max. maybe smaller pola-size than 4x5 to save costs. maybe i am totally offside.
3. some have dreams that fuji will offer them their old instant-technology. They will never commit Instax-suicide....
Michael thanks for your response.
can you expand on Atomic x not being exclusive?
Your dream list is unrealistic basically because so far this has been addressed as if fiddling by any other amateur enthusiast playing with emulsions.
I can prove to have spent way more than their crowd funding yielded testing black and white films and developer combinations in the 90s for my own personal photography. Darkroom Productions in South Beach was one of the labs trying the extensive number of combinations on my behalf .
In the end I realized all my effort was pointless as all that was necessary was to stop using 35mm start using 4x5 where the ratios I wanted were realistic. then I was also lighting in a one size fits all mode
not realizing that I had to overcompensate on my shoots for the lack of latitude of 35mm.
there are too many variables of size contrast and texture and you can be lost in space so to speak for eternity spending money and valuable time.
regarding these guys branching out to different packs and formats you need to visualize that " they" is a guy who rented some space and the technology he approves of as per his videos looks like a mad scientist lab in a harry potter child movie.
When they assembled the materials to make the film It appears the thicknesses which are one of the two relevant aspects of the process were dismissed as " old" so " they" my friend are on a completely different dimension than what anyone would expect a film manufacture approach would be.
I know that could be easily resolved by simply picking up the phone and calling someone who has a manufacturer mentality and responsiveness but by their responses it seems this going around in circles
and crowd funding while admitting the approach is costly and so " send more money" will continue indefinitely.
As I said The atomic X plus monobath aspect can be embraced despite all the hoops and as for the rest
you may need a Ouija board to tell you where this is going to go and frankly I have to concentrate on my priorities as do my colleagues who use my cameras and so it is for that reason that I have tried to make some sense of this from the purpose of what can be salvaged.
Fuji wouldn't touch any on these" moonshine savior and revival cult efforts" because they promote themselves by discrediting what they hope to surpass while proving they have no idea what they are doing.
there is a company I think cat labs of Japan who claims they will make pack films.
it may be a bluff but if it isn't and in Japan they may be able to get Fuji suppliers to do the job and in that way be professional while lacking the experience which is a lot more honest than The Rumpelstiltskin like efforts we have seen so far by these guys and Imposible.
My positions on this thread are
A)substantiated by my personal experience where I have made cameras for 18 years and have received thousands of images from users
some are shown here
I don't know how to make the link active so please copy and paste if it should be of interest
and not a single one having film defects except in very rare occasions when a couple were included in a shipment along with a camera sent for repair to show camera malfunction but the norm is that film is to be free of imperfections.
B) when it comes to the manufacturing approach I have never seen Mc Donald's spend valuable and costly time do a video on how the ketchup packet is made and don't see who could benefit in seeing how a developer pod is similarly made.
I have no doubt that if you are waiting for a paycheck and go to the post office only to find out it wont be there until next week because their mail sorting machines get jammed and there is a screen showing how their mail sorting machines operate you may look at it and wonder that things don't quite add up as to the point of being show what is clearly inefficient.
And to which I add that I started making cameras in 1998 and the 4x5 in 2000 and the only reason there is any reference to how the Littman works is because 5 years later people who wanted to benefit from the name recognition taunted me into pointless discussions.
None of the detractors or those who approved in those " camera freak" discussions could substantiate their positions by the images they took and so a whole lot of bandwidth time and nuisance to the rest of the community and no plus side to be seen anywhere.
and finally remembering it was not necessary to tell people how things work to sell them and that perhaps if they don't work people may not be that interested ?
In short I have never seen a video or article by Linhof Grafic Kodak Polaroid Fuji showing irrelevant manufacturing efforts while posting images from defective film
my comment had nothing to do with politics ....
Im sure it didn't but neither you or I set up this cult like project which moves forward on 55 %politics and 45% ( 4x5 ) haha misguided idealism.
The enticement to use the 13-.18 $ per shot film which may work well some day is encouraged with a speed Graphic which sits in the background
and which requires three hands to operate both inefficient and unresponsive which he rates preferable over a Linhof or a Littman.
Graflex is out of business
If someone shoots with a linhof or a Littman and gets a bad looking negative then it makes him look bad.
If someone shoots with a hit and miss Graflex then its not so clear.
But what is misleading is the implied that any old camera which he recently misrepresented "millions havin been produced and rugged"
Which isnt false in itself but misleading as to justifying spending 13_18 on a ??? Film and being led to believe the good ol Graflex or the millions of
Dust collectors will do.
Never mind the pro or con in that but a few weeks ago when his clients heavily and unanimously objected to the price
He responded that "he had found that the film was not the most expensive part of the process"
Ok let's see
If it isn't the film
If it isnt Grandpa's graflex
Then we what is it?
I tell you :
Subliminal misleading Manure and self serving politics laughing all the way to the bank
it has more to do with the truman show than anything else.
i've been using a speed graphic since 1988 and a graflex slr ( D/4x5 ) since like 1996,
neither takes more than 2 hands to operate, and while i don't plan on using the new 55 film, both have
taken great photographs handheld with polaroid film from the 90s. if they did take so much effort
to operate i don't think the press corps would have used both these styles of cameas since about world war 1.
its too bad inorder to elevate your own camera you need to degrade others, and the gear they use.
The press core world war II 1996 2006 2009 was a long time ago in terms of technical evolution.
After 2011 the required responsiveness snd utility expectancies have changed when you confirm a.need to
Justify a price per shot versus an initial investment in digital
Im not putting anything down.
Most people have put down their hand held 4x5 cameras because even at a dollar per shot it can be a dollar too much
My clients as do I photograph moments which cannot be replaced because of their eventful nature or because the crew's
hired run in the high 5 figure per day.
No doubt that when there are no professional expectancies someone can be happy with " getting something" out of a day
of shooting . Missing a single take out of a shoot date can translate into tens of thousands in reshoot costs.that may fly
eith a few clients but if the photog has to pay himself.... I don't think so.
The us army wasnt going to use a Linhof which was considered a Nazi camera at the time and the jeep had to be
modernized as the earlier versions kept getting troops killed when they rolled over. Now they use the Humvee.
The camera is an equal partner with the film in the equation.
None of the 4x5 options are as convenient as Digital but at least my camera can be the closest in responsiveness. not everyone can afford... that's true
The question isn't only whether the cost of film is an issue but whether people have a willingness as do you to defend folkloric choices.
The answer such can be defended less and less as the number shows they are being dropped like flies.
then the next generation comes along and makes a chopper out of an old bike because of the
" cool" factor then that has nothing to do with the utility but here where expense is an issue it is misleading to present the required responsiveness in 2016 as not being an equal concern to the cost of the film
people believe whatever fairy tales they want.
just like truman
I have shown you what is TRUE MAN
the camera/the film justified by the pictures they produce
If you have done pictures of amazing spontaneity and responsiveness with
Those cameras recently please post them.
People believe in fairy tales?
I believe in god
And in photography I believe only in what I see in the form of pictures
there is 100 years of spontinaity made with those cameras.
100 years thats how long Grandpa's thought his
RB Graflex took to set.up a shot
then the Super D took less ...only a few years so to speak
When we did an evaluation in 1998 it actually took 4-6 seconds
.that is circa 400 years in terms of shutter speed
considering to stop the action of a bullet in a picture you need 2000 of a sec
To stop the action of a.person in a spontaneity shot you need at least
250 sec and you are using a 55_100 asa film? Plus you are hand held and moving yourself?
You are correct there are a lot of" too new" people surfing the internet who believe in fairy tales
Because there are those who use the internet to whiteout the past and say it was grand double D.
Then the spontaneity from the speed grafic was paparazzi style at f16 where the press corps didnt even have
To focus.it was pop pop pop.
Tell me where do you expect to get f16 plus 250 sec with a film 100 asa or less?
Are you saying you spontaneouly shoot only on cloudless summer days at the Outback?
and.then there is speed of focus and framing
We are talking several seconds at best versus a split second when a split second can be a split secong too long.
Finally you take 100.years of images which is millions of images and then the variable that changes is like in a casting
One dancer is amazing when you play a tune and the next one sucks.
Back in the day that was all it was.
Back in the day the difference was always in front of the camera and what the camera could.do fast was very little.
Out of millions of images you can get a decent amount of examples and which will mostly be the subject's charisma versus camera responsiveness.
Also.out of millions of ce'll phone images you can surely put together a decent collection of extremely high quality images where everything worked.
But again this isnt a discussion about cameras but film.+ camera today at a cost you object to versus digital.
The rest belongs in a museum -memory lane or the attic.
the idea that only your camera that you advertise in this forum endless is the only
spontaneous large format camera is absurd. it amazes me that anyone can be closed minded
enough to believe that. no, i don't care about the 17 years worth of upgrades to polaroids already
timeless design you made, or how many hollywood types bought your camera. or how you can use it
with 1 lens ... yes the graflex camera takes 3 seconds to set up. and you can rattle 12 shots out of it
in 12-15 seconds if you want. it has nothing to do with nostalgia, or a sales pitch.
i really wish the moderators would moderate these threads, endless advertising is tedious.
J Nanian what is fair is fair.
If this thread was about a film and its price
Was objectable that implies there would have to be a way to do it for less.
Right there you have a competition which you have no objections that one of them should prevail.
Everything is by degree and all of these discussions imply a choice whivh implies a competitiveness.
According to most of the photographers proficient in responsive 4x5 work at wider apertures
The Linhof was way more responsive than any other 4x5 until 2000 and then the Littman became slightly more responsive because
That is all that is possible.
I agree you dont have to care but when you start making accusations just because a competitiveness exists it is a contradiction.
New55 or any film'm isnt free and so is the case of a camera.
I also dont care if you are willing to spend endless time saying a Graphic is as good as a Linhof.
If instead of A Graflex Super D you would have said a Gowlandflex is responsive and an aid to spontaneity that would be true.
Btw twice as responsive.
Btw My cameras are by now virtualy a hobbie and no longer a business since 2010.
I have used a Grafic for more than 30 years and have 1000 customer feedback.
Those were the makers and shakers at the time when large format was still the only wsy
To obtain high definition images.
It is necessary to maintain some integrity which translates into posting some images that substantiates
That what you claim is indeed an observation from personal experience instead of throwing in the Towel
By hoping the moderators have to bail you out on some some alleged impropriety.
It is important to recognize that things evolved.
Where have you read me saying everyone should buy my csmera in the last 7 years?
I was very upfront as to the synergy of the film and how it relates to my camera as my motivation for
Trust me I shoot a lot more than make cameras.
If you can substantiate the position with personal images I have no problem being surprised
Despite 30 years of personal experience with the graflexes plus 20 more years assisting the most
Separate names with a comma.