IS EVERYONE EXITED THAT POSITIVE/ NEGATIVE FILM IS BACK ?

[william_littman3]

<p>haha yes Bob excited<br>

visit the page announcement from may 9th on the color film and let me know what you think of the guys responses </p>

[bob_salomon]

I'm not impressed with his products.

[william_littman3]

<p>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 .<br>

You may have heard of the law of attraction?<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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".<br>

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.<br>

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 </p>

[jnanian]

<p>at nearly 20$/exposure<br>

how can anyone but people with<br>

wheelbarrows full of $$$ be excited ?<br>

sure, it is exciting this film exists again<br>

but that is about it ..</p>

[william_littman3]

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.

[william_littman3]

Correction:should have read" must come with a few fat joints or ecstasy pills ";)

[william_littman3]

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

[jnanian]

<p>at close to $20 / pop im excited that other people are wealthy enough to be able to afford<br>

this sort of fun. i'd rather buy silver nitrate, NaCl, KBr and coat my own with the limited resources<br>

i have.</p>

[william_littman3]

<p>Thanks for sharing the excitement J.<br /> 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.<br /> 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,</p>

[jnanian]

<p>not really excited, but interested that another product has<br>

made it back to the marketplace and kind of amazed that anyone would spend $20 an exposure<br>

on a sheet of 4x5 film just because they can. </p>

<p>no clue what your negative-comments have to do with anything. it is just as easy to take terrible photographs<br>

using materials that cost $20 with and a boutique developer vs. materials that cost 100x less than that. <br>

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<br>

are, they are blind to that and insist their results are "great" because of the expense involved.</p>

[jim_bielecki1]

<blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

</p>

[william_littman3]

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.

[jnanian]

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>hi jim</p>

<p>sorry for the confusion,<br>

i said <em>close to $20 an exposure</em> and <em>nearly $20 a pop</em>, i know it doesn't cost $20 an exposure<br>

but close enough that it puts it beyond my interest or reach ...</p>

<p>the way i came up with "close to $20 "<br>

according to the new55 website that sells it, a 5 sheet box for 75$ + shipping<br /><br />(new55-film dot myshopify dot com)<br /><br />the shipping cost distributed to the 5 sheets in the box<br>

comes out to $15+ whatever the shipping is ...<br>

seems a bit more than your 13$, you got a pretty good deal in any case.</p>

<p>no idea where you are located, but i don't have a local place that sells it, within a 3 hour drive<br>

so no matter who i purchase it from its going to include shipping fees ...</p>

<p>i have the same point of view about a lot of things having to do with large format photography.<br>

shooting 8x10 chromes, sure i can do it, but at close to $35-40 an exposure<br>

do i want to spend that much money on a 8x10 chrome?<br>

do i really need a camera body or lens that combined cost $10,000?<br>

nope, i'd rather spend my $$ other things ..<br>

if others want to have fun with that stuff, good for them !</p>

<p>where did you get your 55 from ?<br>

thanks</p>

 

[william_littman3]

<p>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.<br>

this unfortunately affects all perception on todays internet and the main motivator for me starting this thread</p>

[jim_bielecki1]

<blockquote>

<p>where did you get your 55 from ?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

[jnanian]

<blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>thanks .. i didn't know they were offering discounts and specials. <br>

i'm not on FB or any sort of mailing list. <br>

have fun shooting.</p>

[william_littman3]

<p>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.<br>

but my biggest question regarding the recent announcement for a color test run which BTW sold out in 48 hs....<br>

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.<br>

<br />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"?<br />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.<br />If it not a tease and doesn't address the obvious issues then it's yet another waste of time?<br>

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.<br /><br>

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? " <br /><br>

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 <br /></p>

[william_littman3]

<p>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.<br /> here is a shot taken with old 55<br>

Now in the case of the Littman camera detractors alleged people thought it was better because it cost more.<br>

Supporters proved it cost more because it consistently aided in the production of more spontaneous imagery <br>

I am very clear on my position I don't spend a dime unless something is better or facilitates things</p><div></div>

[jnanian]

<blockquote>

<p>finally as the testing of improperly assembled materials which are neither the final product and not actually made by them ...<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[william_littman3]

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

Permits.

 

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

The narcissism.

[jnanian]

<p>we live in strange times, and the internet hasn't helped</p>

[william_littman3]

<p>That is in what refers to New55.<br>

But my purpose for starting this thread was not destructive- the facts are not encouraging imho but again<br>

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.<br>

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 .<br>

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 .<br>

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 .<br>

the " instant" has its value as a novelty for an audience who is moved by such.<br>

I belong to an audience which seeks a negative of sufficient clarity so as to facilitate pictures which <br>

an educated consumer and an editorial readership will find moving and compelling.<br>

it is on these grounds that I invite fellow photographers to go ahead and use what is viable despite <br>

having to step over all of this type of debris for the reasons I have reiteratively explained.<br>

and then again this may be something which is entirely not up your alley and which is fine too.<br>

Thank you</p>

 

[william_littman3]

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 :)

[michael_przewrocki2]

<p>1. Atomic X can be bought elsewhere. its not an exclusive product.<br>

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.<br>

3. some have dreams that fuji will offer them their old instant-technology. They will never commit Instax-suicide....</p>

[william_littman3]

<p>Michael thanks for your response.<br /> can you expand on Atomic x not being exclusive?<br /> Your dream list is unrealistic basically because so far this has been addressed as if fiddling by any other amateur enthusiast playing with emulsions.<br /> 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 .<br /> 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<br /> not realizing that I had to overcompensate on my shoots for the lack of latitude of 35mm.<br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> 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 <br /> and crowd funding while admitting the approach is costly and so " send more money" will continue indefinitely.<br /> As I said The atomic X plus monobath aspect can be embraced despite all the hoops and as for the rest<br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> there is a company I think cat labs of Japan who claims they will make pack films. <br /> 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.</p>