IS EVERYONE EXITED THAT POSITIVE/ NEGATIVE FILM IS BACK ?

[william_littman1]

<p>Lets get something clear. the price is ridiculous because the business model is ridiculous.<br /> If the guy says 85x5 shots = Kickstarter and then the price comes down it is still ridiculous but on a short term basis.<br /> The other day someone asked about that and his response was the prices will remain unchanged for a long time.</p>

<p>I have and have had the people who would invest in this so it doesn't have to be made like moonshine but from having followed this from the onset what I get is the guy chose this model because this way;<br /> he didn't know how to go from A to B and wants you to pay for it - get patents for what he didn't know how to and then the icing on the cake is = keep the shares .<br /> Lets not forget the 55 went belly up while all the tech was available so perhaps rushing to <br /> be perfect before rolling up the curtain was not a good idea.<br /> So to me this whole research approach on the road most travelled and "NEW" is only new to him. What is "NEW" and unprecedented is the way he's positioning himself that he has to be given an entire business operation before he can" save The Polaroid" . and that is why all the focus on what still needs to be done. As those who care about pictures will use it and don't care about the derogatory admissions ( me being one of them) but by being alarmist he can keep getting funded instead of having to share the pie with an investor. At least that is how I see it.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"[...] and the film works well enough to use and that is what photographers care about."</i> really good to see that you have changed your mind, William.<br>So returning to the product itself: the thing about this film is that it can't be trusted to work as expected. And that what we could expect if we could anyway is certainly not (yet?) "good enough".<br>Issues about business models and pricing are relatively unimportant, but given that the product isn't a product, but merely an attempt at such to begin with, they ad insult to injury. Not excited.

[bob_salomon]

William, you do know that the main reason that Polaroid ended up going out of business is because the owner of Polaroid

was arrested for running a Ponzi scheme, all of his businesses were used to try to repay his scammed victims, all were

liquidated and he is in Federal prison. It isn't as simple as 55 just going away!

[william_littman1]

<p>Bob that was a Ponzi scheme. This new one is so fresh it could be called a" Fonzi" scheme.</p>

<p>And that is why my position is that De Bakker is right that it isn't perfect yet but I still feel the product deserves support but as I said conditional to a commitment to stop lecturing while you say it needs work and go do the work. and then that the so called support translates in reciprocity in the form of price stability and sensible prices so it can actually survive .</p>

[bob_salomon]

Yes, it needs a lot of work. But that is not an excuse for them charging people, a lot of money, to be the testers. Until it is

a proven product it should be withdrawn from sale. If they need users to test it during its development then they should

supply it a no cost to testers. If they really had resources behind them they would send it to testers, have them sign non-

disclosure agreements and pay them for their testing time and efforts. Then they could present a working, reliable product to the market and justify the price.

[william_littman1]

<p>The age for those rules went out with the necessity. I still believe that it is fair to support someone willing to make something available when no one else is.<br>

But the support has to be reciprocal so that the investment will translated two fold<br>

a) Viability<br>

B) reasonable pricing</p>

<p>so yes I do believe it is fair to support it if the support is directed at making the product viable for the user.<br>

On the other hand if the extra costs are a means to allow this guy to learn what he doesn't know- build himself a factory- obtain patents for what he didn't know- unprecedented lol- lecture about what he says doesn't yet work-all of the above time wasting is the biggest expense of all. time is money ....7 years.....then keep the shares and then in turn keep prices <br>

high on an ongoing basis I would say no way José unless they send me a free " fool" decal for my forehead because in such model the film isn't saved - he is and whatever you've saved will go to his account .<br>

Whether the actual costs are higher or the return expectations are higher or whether the planning is poor makes no difference to me.<br>

So my suggestion is we should support this in exchange for a commitment for light at the end of the tunnel .Otherwise after 7 years It seems the lack of momentum stems from focus on research per se versus research towards practical use and if this weren't true then <br>

I would say beyond hopeless in the business side of things. </p>

[bob_salomon]

William, having a test phase to perfect a product is a very common practice today. Name one, just one, company that

does it the way these people are trying to do it. That one is for a company that actually brought a viiable, working product

to the market.

[william_littman1]

<p>Zero! I agree this infuriates me as everyone agrees its infantile and after 7 years I'm at a loss for words.<br>

That is why I feel the support should be conditional to a commitment to get off charity and run this as a business.<br>

But while everything always makes sense on paper the fact remains that the so called " product" is no longer a necessity per se and so has to be supported in part. Those who are interested in it should.<br>

So bottom line is we all agree the business model makes no sense- we should expect it does soon and in the meantime people who feel like playing with it wont get too hurt by an occasional expense. 55 got up to 600.00 for a box of 20 after discontinuation . my friend sold several cases at that price. Right now New 55 is about equiv 300.00 for a box of 20.<br>

They could consider doing +crowd funding on the side instead of discouraging users</p>

[william_littman1]

<p>someone's exited lol</p>

<p>https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153455893633983&set=a.10151201759713983.466147.537008982&type=3&theater</p>

[william_littman1]

<p>This picture I took with the old T55. the new one seems more saturated and richer tone with more blacks and that is something I can get exited about because I like plate photography look but hate the iso speed.</p><div></div>

[william_littman1]

<p>On the other hand the new film has a tonal range more similar to this other shot and a range I prefer more</p><div></div>

[william_littman1]

<p>I would love to see more examples from those who have already tested it</p>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>My experience with P/N 55 was in a laboratory setting. It was convenient and efficient to have a small positive print that you could tape into a lab notebook for documentation and a negative for making prints for publication or further analysis. At the time, I shot 4x5 black and white as an amateur landscape photographer (I still use my 4x5 Wista occasionally), but even back then, I could not justify the cost of P/N versus Tri-X or Tmax or Ilford Delta film. Now, digital has completely taken over in lab settings and EXIF information provides the necessary documentation. So, the lab setting justification for P/N film has completely disappeared.</p>

[william_littman1]

<p>Of course<br>

lab justification disappeared and so did the labs lol<br>

definition justification disappeared as necessity due to digital<br>

And on tripod justification was the requirement for definition and that has also disappeared<br>

What cannot disappear is the properties of projection of large format which are appealing to some<br>

smaller formats cannot make these proportions appear as the lens too close to the plane.<br>

And after this long the old audience moved on so disappeared in a way<br>

But with all that said there is a need for it for artistic pursuit </p>

[william_littman1]

<p>And now for a little humor lol<br>

type"exited" into the photo.net search box the results will show we are the first parade to hit main St in a long time lol. <br>

Maybe that is why some say this sounds like buyagra or = buy aggravation </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

And how about "excited"?

[william_littman1]

<p>Subject: IS EVERYONE EXCITED THAT POSITIVE/ NEGATIVE FILM IS BACK ?<br>

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

[q.g._de_bakker]

Starting a new thread? ;-)

[william_littman1]

<p>No but if I did I would call it " New English" or Littman English haha.</p>

 

[william_littman1]

<p>Can someone explain this?<br>

Recently Bob Crowley stated that there was a problem with New55 New 55 film in that the rollers of the 545 have to be re tensioned<br>

but the fact is the new film is minus the parchment edges which formed the type 55 borders( the main reason people liked the film and which Crowley refers as Polatrash.<br>

whatever the case may be that is obviously the width missing and the lessened tension.<br>

folks this is obviously not the theory of everything but the theory of everything made up as it goes along<br>

What credibility is there to such scientific ensuing excuses? </p>

[william_littman3]

<p>As it was I who started this thread I must admit that excitement has turned to concern.<br>

I do not know how many of you follow the progress of this project over the last 7 years but I was amazed to learn a couple of days ago that while the original supporters of the 2015 crowdfunding who0 were promised specific allocations " in case they succeed" are being made to wait for their rewards while you can pay now and receive their current 5 sheet for 85.00 package. One resigned supporter recently posted" it was either a choice of waiting or not getting it at all". <br>

After reading a recent disclosure ref the allocation of the funds of the crowdfunding it seems the cost of elapsed time in rent and related costs is one of the highest costs. to which I add Bob Crowley has declared recently the price would not come down in a long time.<br>

In short there has already been a retraction of assurance to the original supporters and as per the opinions of posters here this monochrome film has yet a long way to go and what amazed me was the posting of an intention to now start with New55 color two days ago film because Fuji 100c is being discontinued and so it may be the right time.<br>

When you don't have the cards to play one hand " the extent of the knowledge which still requires extensive experimentation or the cash to back it up" what you have is a bluff.<br>

When you don't have the cash to back up a single hand of poker you can not open yet a substantialy more extensive new deck and ask us to pay for it - keep writing blank checks.<br>

I would assume as would anyone reasonable that " hwen we succeed" would equate to a viable film and a viable manufacture and distribution at a viable price"<br>

None of these factors are true yet.<br>

So my first question would be why 400.000 as a number for the original crowdfunding?<br>

400g is more attractive than the actual amount needed and frankly they still don't know how much they need since they are tinkering reverse engineering or experimenting .<br>

View camera magazine director Steve Simmons recently posted that this project has refused to provide samples of their product for review and I assure the project has refused to provide samples to me so I could have it tested by the worlds most renowned which would have resulted in great exposure ( free).<br>

So what has been referred to in articles as" Bob Crowley's irreverence" is in my opinion nothing other than 1) someone getting irritated when their bluff is called .<br>

2) as there is in my opinion substantial confirmation the purpose of the project is to serve as a promotion for Crowley's inventiveness and place him in a 0plateau as an opinion leader I will provide an analogy so as to shed some light on this scenario.<br>

I don't know if all of you are aware that when Nikola Tesla immigrated into the US he was immediately hired by Thomas Edison.<br>

Shortly after Tesla showed his drafts ref alternating current t5o Edison who went ballistic now fearing Tesla as a competitor and going to0 extensive lengths to discredit Tesla and AC as a Quack and dangerous respectively.<br>

As you know AC prevailed.<br>

Crowley was very interested at the onset in the mystique and cult like following obtained by the LITTMAN but a few months later and without going into detail a similar situation as between Edison and Tesla developed and from that point on his project seems aimed at people aged in their 30s and where every opinion or fact has to repackaged as" NEW".= "HIS".<br>

A couple of months ago I posted that any further support for this project would have to be conditional toa specific goal as I suspected that otherwise he would keep moving the " if we succeed " bar further and us fools have to fund it.<br>

Now its not a suspicion but fact.<br>

I do not believe there is an intent to defraud - instead there is a mystifying of a final goal as justifying any and all sacrifice which most people refer to as demagoguery and by which there can be no victims when a goal so uplifting is expected to be shared by all....<br>

I assume that 400.000 could have been 25 or 50% of all large format photography budget for 2015.<br>

and so this what is obviously unprofessional compulsive and aimless is a risk not only to those who invest but to any and all related support services .<br>

I think we should be told if the monochrome is being saved for us our children or our grandchildren and secondly if the price is expected to remain at 18.00 per shot for a long time surely no one can expect most people would buy it in continuation so there is no light at the end of the tunnel to be expected when someone sets higher goals which consume funds and resources one does not have while one doesn't even have the" all "the experience ( which is the biggest cause of time related expenses and costly errors".<br>

I am reluctant to give up on this entirely as I do have a nostalgic attachment to an specified expectancy and in no way tied to a whatever or whenever fantasy.<br>

But the time has come to remember a film is a service - it has to have continuity- it has to be viable - it has to be affordable <br>

What we have seen is not exactly that but instead 7 years have elapsed with sporadic testing's which look more esoteric than scientific and manufacture settings which look more Willy Wonka than professional and then there is the so called irreverence....<br>

In closing I invite the supporters to continue to do so but strictly on a conditional basis otherwise I am afraid this will be nothing more than an ongoing nuisance and distraction .<br>

Thank You</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

[william_littman3]

<p>New development/ color new55 new 55<br>

http://www.photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/00dxcq?unified_p=1</p>

[william_littman3]

<p>The relevant aspects of Polaroid type peel apart films are neither many nor rocket science<br>

the ROLLERS<br>

THE NEGATIVE<br>

THE COATED PAPER THAT YIELDS A PRINT<br>

THE PACKET<br>

THE PARCHMENT PAPER WHICH ACTS AS A SPACER AND DEVELOPMENT CONTAINER<br>

THE FILM HOLDER AKA 545 550 CB-103 ETC<br>

Folks please accept my apologies but there is noting else to this. Nothing!!!<br>

here is what I have been able to verify as to New55 handling of the only relavant issues to the process<br>

1)the ROLLERS: doesn't get it<br>

Bob Crowley claimed last year that the rollers had lost spring tension over the years and an interference with their expected results.<br>

fact is the new55 results prove the materials are already subjected to too much roller pressure due to incorrect thicknesses. <br>

2)THE NEGATIVE Doesn't get it<br>

atomic x seems to be a good choice for emulsion but type 55 was much thinner acetate as all polapan films were and all peel apart negatives require thin acetate so roller pressure can do its job<br>

3) THE EMULSION Seems like a good choice <br>

4) THE DEVELOPER they have the tech from John Reuter for more than 2 years now.<br>

5) THE PACKET they don't get it<br>

polaroid sheet film packet was paper thin so as to allow rollers to spread the developer<br>

6) THE COATING of the PRINT they don't get it<br>

Polaroid peel apart print coating are applied semi dry and approximate a film emulsion much like <br>

printer photographic paper, you cannot expose paper to liquids and expect it not to swell and you can not <br>

expect liquefied solutions can dry to be even coatings and instead will have a fisheye look to the grain.</p>

 

[william_littman3]

<p>To summarize as you can read in the exchange of questions and answers on the NEW55 Facebook page<br /> the research commenced 7 years ago and when I confronted Crowley on the fact the packet thickness seemed to interfere with developer spreading. when the arbitrary discarding of the parchment frame he labeled polatrash is causing that not enough developer stays applied during process. when roller spring tension is blamed for inadequate development when in fact since polaroid develops from light to dark it is obvious to anyone that there is too much roller tension and the developer is squeezed out from the areas with ghostly patterns. when they have had the developer formulas for at least 2 years now and when the coating being liquefied cannot be expected appropriate for a print paper I have to conclude that these being the only relevant researches which should interest a manufacturer were arbitrarily approached with no base to reason being the process utilizes existing holders and rollers and there is virtually very little that can change if it is going to work.<br /> The question therefore isn't whether this can be done as Crowley states but whether he has the willingness to do it instead of postponing and complicating what is very simple as he keeps reminding everyone" this is important" <br /> Important would be that a reliable viable film would be made available without the side show and at a fair price.<br /> Fuji did that- Polaroid did that . Do you know the names of anyone who was involved in making those films? No you don't and that is the importance sought and why this will not progress IMHO while what is very simple and cannot be done that differently is a wild card by someone who needs to get noticed .<br /> I hope things will change but as time goes by all I hear are self congratulatory " we are the only people making instant films"<br /> In short to claim innovation Crowley needed to first recreate the original process in regard to thicknesses because unless he makes new holders and rollers there is virtually no space to change anything<br /> Secondly since after 7 years he obviously doesn't get it and adds that research is risky and exploratory<br /> and I add only because the old process is belittled but in not taking that as a starting point misleads supporters when he is using the old product to have people send him money and whatever results are obtained having started from an arbitrary decision dictate that you don't know what zero error is .<br /> Zero error in a camera would be when you have calibrated the infinity stop in a camera.<br /> it couldn't sit anywhere else.<br /> in every aspect of a process there is a zero error and to know that you have to start where others left off.<br /> In short I think this will not be nothing but I doubt it can became consistent fairly priced or be available without going thru hoops and endless self congratulatory excuses.<br /> I will still support it as I believe in miracles the film needs none the makers need many.</p>

[bob_salomon]

Why would be exited rather then possibly excited?