How do Polaroid type 52 and 72 films compare?

[Troll]

Coating Polaroid films has always been a PITA, especially in the

field. They advertise type 72 as being a coaterless version of type

52, but how do they look? Is the deep, deep black with shadow detail

still present, like a good ferrotyped glossy print? Any other

comments appreciated, please. TIA.

[michael_briggs2]

I think of Polaroid Type 53 is the coaterless equivalent of Type 52. Comparisons I made of these two films show them to have virtually identical contrast and tonal performance (characteristic curves). The datasheets on Polaroid's website show types 52 and 53 to have very similar Characteristic H&D curves, but the curve for Type 72 shows somewhat higher contrast (i.e., shorter exposure range from full black to full white).

 

I find Type 53 to be easier to use in the field because of its coaterless nature. A possible drawback is that some say that the print lifetime is less than Type 52 -- I don't know of any official Polaroid statements on this issue. The surface of Type 53 prints is glossy, but not extremely glossy.

[marshall_arbitman1]

Bill:

 

I've only used the 52, but judging by Polaroid's data sheets 72 has quite a bit more contrast. If 52 is N then 72 looks to be about N+2.

 

Also 72 exhibits higher resolution, which may simply be due to measuring at the higher contrast. Dunno, I'm not a whiz at reading MTF charts. Also, 72 needs a bit more reciprocity compensation.

 

So no, one isn't simply the coaterless equivalent of the other. If it were, I'd imagine 52 would have been discontinued.

[ed_ogrady]

Bill, polaroid site has downloadable pdf's for all their film. Pdf's have quite abit of information here is the link.

http://www.polaroid.com/service/filmdatasheets/4_5/index.html

[Troll]

Thanks, Fellows. Looks like I'll be sticking with type 52 for a few years more (and 55, of course).