4x5 Polaroid options

[simonpg]

Some time ago some of you advised me on Polaroid 4x5 holder options,

so I picked up a cheap 545I (I think that's its model no) Polaroid

holder.

 

Now, my quick question is your thoughts/suggestions about film

options (colour and/or B&W) to start with. I thought that over

Easter, I'd get out and "fire away" in an attempt to get some lovely

Polaroid prints.

 

A few of you suggested web sites that had illustrations of well

used/taken Polaroid 4x5 film images - now I wonder what options were

used and what I should start with as well as any tips peculiar to the

product.

 

Thanks and Happy Easter and thanks for your help and past guidance.

[krimple]

I just started myself (only 5 in) but I got a pack of 100 ISO Polapan. About 45 seconds development time in room temperature. Easy to use and I like the tones I got on two of the images.

 

I'm very interested in what others have to say. If I may ask, what kind of lens do you have --coated or non? I have an old speed graphic with uncoated lens, and wonder what I'd need to use for filtration with color films.

 

Ken<div></div>

[simonpg]

Thanks Ken. I do agree with you about the lovely smooth tones in your shot. Sounds like a good place to start.

 

I use a mix of MC Schneider and Rodenstock lenses. Symmar-S and Grandagon-N all MC since the buying was so good. But I do have an early non-coated Schneider Symmar, so I'll compare in B&W.

 

Filters with non-coated, I can't help with as I'm just not qualified to say. But, I have a number of early MF folders and 35mm rangefinders with non-coated lenses. I use them regularly for fun with B&W as well as colour film and have really liked the color film results - a certain feel that comes through. But I use them with no filters but mostly with lens hoods out doors and take care with angles. My various Voigtlander 35mm rangefinders have delivered some wonderful images in very harsh Aussie light. I suggest experimentation is the best course.

[Sandeha Lynch]

There's a thread on the Classic camera forum right now that discusses the color/uncoated lens issue - you'd find it interesting. The short answer is that u/ct works great - just watch out for flare.

<p>

If you're into getting a lot of practice on the cheap, try using matt photographic printing paper instead of black and white negatives. Just stick a sheet in your film holder as normal, call it ISO 6 as a starting point, and dev as for paper. Scan and invert.

<p>

Fun, isn't it!

[michael_briggs2]

<p>The most popular B+W Polaroid 4x5 sheet materials are Types 52 and 55. The Type 52 provides a nice print, while Type 55 can provide a print or a negative, but not at the same time because the speed of the print and negative is different. I like the Polaroid Type 53, which I find to have the same speed and contrast as the Type 52 prints. The difference is that Type 52 prints need to be coated using a liquid and a sponge applicator, while the Type 53 prints don't need coating. Type 53 is termed "coaterless". Coaterless types are more convenient, particularly in the field, where dust getting into the wet coating can be a problem. (However, it has been asserted that coaterless prints won't last as long as coated prints: <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0034dE">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0034dE</a>.)</p>

 

<p>One "trick" for types that need coating is to remove your final exposure from the holder without developing it, then to develop later, in dust free conditions. Polaroid has instructions on how to remove film from the holder without processing it.</p>

 

<p>I highly recommend the 1978 edition of the book <b>Polaroid Land Photography</b> by Ansel Adams. It will show you how to use Polaroid materials. While there have been a few revised or new products since 1978, the fundamentals haven't changed. You can find the book via internet used book sites.</p>

 

<p>On a previous thread I provided links to Polaroid's pages about using 4x5 Polaroid sheet film, and their descriptions of the films: <i>Polaroids as an end product</i> at <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BKsY">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BKsY</a>.</p>

 

<p>You might want to browse some of the other previous threads on Polaroid films -- at the bottom of the forum web page there is a link to the category "Film: Polaroid".</p>

 

<p>Re lens coating and color: even uncoated lenses will probably have good transmission for all colors, and so probably won't need a filter to for color balance. Try looking through the lens at a white paper and seeing if it has a color cast. The main effect of an uncoated lens will be reduced contrast because light will be scattered into the shadows. Are you sure that your lens is uncoated? Unless really old (pre-WWII), a lens like a Symmar is likely to be single coated. LF lenses tend to have few air-to-glass surfaces, and so the difference between single coating and multicoating isn't as large as it is for many 35 mm lenses.</p>

[bruce_barlow]

I've compared Type 52 to Type 72 (ISO 400, coaterless), and like Type 72 better. Coaterless is a gift, too.

 

I really like the extra speed of the ISO 400 films for LF.

[keithostertag]

Hey Bruce- could you elaborate on why you like type 72 better than type 52? Tones? Contrast? Blacks?

 

I wanted to mention- if you use Polaroids for testing exposure it is nice to have type 55 negatives so you can check critical focus as well.