Polaroid Type 55 Negs

[bob_gentile]

I have three questions about Polaroid Type 55 film. None of the

B&W Photo forums

seemed quite right, and I hope these questions aren't inappropriate

for this forum. Oh...

wait. I can <em>make</em> them appropriate with the proper preface.

(Heh heh.)

 

<p>When using (<em>ahem</em>) my Polaroid 545 back...</p>

 

<p>1. I seem to recall hearing that Type 55 provides a medium

contrast, finely detailed

negative. Is this so? Comments?</p>

 

<p>2. I seem also to recall that exposing for the negative is

different from exposing for

the positive -- that it should be exposed as an ISO 64 film instead

of ISO 50 for best

results. Is this so? (Or was that ISO 40?)</p>

 

<p>3. Is it possible to <em>manipulate</em> <em>development</em> of

the negative by

peeling it apart sooner and/or later than the specified time? </p>

 

<p>Sorry about force-fitting a "film" question into the LF

forum, but all the

other Type 55 posts I searched were posted here as well.

[bhneely]

I've found that exposing at EI 50 gave me slight underexposure and had pretty good success at EI 40 instead. When using my 545 back, of course.

 

Brian

[leicaglow]

Hi Bob,

 

1. I would go so far as to say Type 55 is slightly low to medium contrast.

 

2. Yes, I would absolutely agree with this. I find a well exposed print will result in an underexposed negative (at least for my printing taste). I give about another stop and a half for the negative (over it's rated speed), and I find I get something I can print with. Otherwise the negative is just too thin. So I would say ISO 40 is just about right on.

 

3. Yes, absolutely! I've done a lot of experimenting with this over the last 6 months to see if I could produce a mini-zone system effect. With a typical zone system scenario, exposure and development are the two main variables. The problem is that 55's add a third dimension of temperature (or rather it's a bigger factor).

 

BTW, I usually dispose of the print portion because I think they look ugly, especially with the coating. I've been using Type 54 lately and blown away by the quality and beautiful tones. Now if we could just get a negative to go with it, that would be great.

 

The attached images are bad examples with a bad scan (it was the only example I have easily available), but you can see the effect of the higher contrast (bottom) acheived by reducing the exposure (I didn't record it, but I believe it was about 20%) and increasing development (by about 40%). I wasn't happy with the original's low contrast, so I used this technique to bump the negative to something that looked more printable.

 

Michael<div></div>

[william_littman]

I have had best luck with 40asa but have gone to asa 25 when I want really thick negs.

 

because you have no development control except to underdevelop or slight control by overdevelop exposure is critical.

 

I can judge the neg while it has the blue tint on it from experience I never look at the print for exposure and then I shoot the rest accordingly.

 

I would say that it provides medium contrast if exposed right and can offer high contrast if exposed perfectly , but really thin negs can give you awful contrast and that is why using one as to verify the actual exposure is not a bad idea, what could be better than a film which is actually used to check exposure on every format which gives you the chance to verify how well it is exposed 30 seconds after you shoot it?.

for that i also carry a 405 with 665 to test exposure because its cheaper

 

It offers fine detail and fine grain if you print it first and then scan but if you scan directly the texture is slightly different and the grain a little unusual and you might get a feeling of grain if the lighting was flat.

 

for my purposes it doesn't matter but there is a difference.

 

I think its best quality to print first an average print and then scan and adjust /retouch in PS .

 

I find it is very easy to use, if something is white in real life and doesn't look black on the neg then your neg is thin.

 

If your neg looks dark overall then it is probably too thick.

 

it is not tech pan but because you get to verify exposure on site that is where you can control it.

[scott___1]

i'm too lazy to retype what i posted on the other forum, but will paste a link:

 

http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/502507.html

 

type 55 for neg: iso 25

type 55 for positive: iso 50

 

if you're shooting for positives, you're better off using type 54

[beepy]

I'm in the ISO 25 for negative also. ISO 40 always ended up thin. I go 60 seconds on

development - development stops when it stops - doesn't affect negative. The negatives

seem to me very fine grain. Can produce beautiful prints. I've successfully printed 55 negs

with the Pt/Pd process. I have notes on Polaroid 55 I think in my photo.net home page.

[janvanhove]

I concur, t-55 for neg: ASA25...<br/><br/>

The negatives are never really thick, though, and the contrast might be too low for some alternative processes, but I've made oilprints from T-55 negs...</br><br/>

 

 

<img src="http://paw.janvanhove.com/PAW/images/swordoil.jpg" align="center" vspace="20">

[scott___1]

development time is not that critical for the negs, as there's a fixer in the soup, so in a way, it's self limiting. let it got for a minute and you'll be fine. let it got for two, and you'll be fine.

 

love those polariod edges.

[streetlevel]

I've heard some people use selenium intensification on the T55

negs. I've never tried it - but my negs have always been

sufficiently exposed for scanning - always in search of better

techniques tho.

 

Anybody use selenium with these, and what kind of effect can we

reasonably expect?

[michael_j._kravit1]

Yup, use selenium when I want a kick in highlights.

Great film, use it almost exclusively with 4x5. Makes great palladium prints as well.

[bob_gentile]

Okay... ISO 25 for negs it is.

 

Thank you all! Lotsa good info here. Lotsa food for thought.

[scott___1]

another vote for selenium the type 55... 1:10 dilution.

[streetlevel]

For what it's worth... This was shot at ISO 25 - no selenium, and very little contrast bump

in the scan either...<br>

<br>

I love this film. (A few more in that folder too)<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3338913">Old Furla

Photography Bldng, North LaSalle</a>

[d_purdy]

Years ago before the polaroid Kodak fallout, the film used for 55 was

Panatomic X. I would sometimes take the film out un processed and process

it by hand in HC 110.

 

I am not sure what film they are using now but I think I remember hearing it

was Fuji film. I would be curious if anyone is processing it by hand and what

are the developer and times. I have just started shooting a bunch of the 665

and it is a bit faster than the 55. the negs look pretty good though perhaps

lacking in shadow detail.