IS EVERYONE EXITED THAT POSITIVE/ NEGATIVE FILM IS BACK ?

<p>http://www.new55.net/</p>

<b>NO, I'M NOT</b>... 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,

stage left!

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.<br /> 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.</p>

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.

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

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?

<p>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. </p>

<p>Right now, it’s a better studio film than outdoor film. The fixing/wash steps are necessary ones.</p>

<p>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.</p>

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.

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

 

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.

<p>Its nice but too expensive for me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jim, why is that a needed point? This technology was replaced many years ago by digital.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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). </p>

<p>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.<br>

</p>

 

The point can't be to make something of which people have to wonder what its point is. What is the point of <i>"offer[ing] a modern "Polaroid" 4x5 film that gives you a print and a negative"</i>?<br>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?<br>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?<br>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.

<p><em>What is the point of having an extremely expensive but poor print and a usable negative </em><br>

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.</p>

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.

<p><em> 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.</em><br>

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).</p>

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!

<p>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. </p>

<p>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? </p>

<p>And BTW, I won’t be buying anymore until they bring the costs down. At $17.00/pop, it’s too damn expensive.</p>

<p>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. </p>

 

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.