Using Polaroid Type 55 4x5 - HELP

[steve_feldman2]

I look to this forum of silver haired, therefore more experienced,

mavens of the silver medium for advice and guidance.

 

I�m looking for assistance on using Polaroid Type 55 4x5 material.

I�ve had an interesting first trial with this stuff. Got some

unexpected results. (Read weird and ghastly).

 

Metered for my scene at ASA 50 � sun lighted full contrast range

subject � incident read f16 @ 1/50 second. Processed from a Polaroid

545 holder for 25 seconds. Pulled it apart � positive B & W image

looked fine with moderate contrast and good blacks. Did 2 more

iterations of this. 1 at 1 over and 1 at 1 under exposure with the

same processing time. I then soaked the negatives, which looked very

bluish toned, into a bath of sodium sulfite (1 tbs. diluted in a tray

of about 1/2 gallon water) agitated for about 15 minutes. This

cleared the negs and got most of the blue cast and gunk off of them.

I then washed and hung to dry all 3 negs.

 

The negs are thin enough to drive a truck through. Detailed but very

thin. Contact proofing showed very little difference in the 3 images.

All were dark, detailed, but exceedingly flat in contrast. Enlarged

prints from the best of the worst of these negs were still flat even

after printing on a VC #5 filter. Being as thin as they were, it

didn�t take a lot of exposure time on my cold light head.

 

What did I do wrong? How do I get more contrast and density in the

negs from this material?

 

Thank you, masters. I await your responses and maybe a few chuckles

are my inept expense.

[mo_kenny]

The negative should be rated at ASA 25 OR 32 to be able to obtain a good negative.

The print of the polaroid is usually exposed at a higher ASA 50-80.

For contrasty situations, you can do pre-exposure. For more information, you can obtain from your local library the book "Polaroid Land photography" by Ansel Adams. Furthermore, you can go to the Polaroid web site and read the technical manual on the film.

 

Mo Kenny.

[henry_a]

Rate it at 20-25, leave it to develop longer, like 45 secs or a full minute. If its cold outside hold the packet on your belly to warm it up and keep it warm. The print should be quite overexposed for the negative to be good. I'd use more sodium sulfite, maybe 3-4 big tablespoons to a half gallon of warm water, let it cool to room temp before you use it. Put the negs in, gently scrub the goop off with our fingers, let 'em soak a while then wash in water like your other film.

[dave_t]

<i>The negs are thin enough to drive a truck through</i>

<p>

You did nothing wrong, but ISO 50 is for the positive. The negs are more like ISO 20. If you're using the negs to print, take a positive if you want to check, reset exposure, shoot for the neg. BTW, I'm not a master, just one who is accumulating mistakes.

[art_haykin]

Working as a lab tech in a top lab in L.A. for years, we had several pros who shot a LOT of P/N Polaroid and brought them in unprocessed. I ran them through a Polaroid back to process then according to each pro's instruction, and none were interested in the positive print. None asked for less than one full minute processing time, and some wanted as much as two minutes. The processing is self-limiting. Also, I cleared and fixed them in fresh film hypo with a dash of hardener.

[neil_poulsen1]

For a really authoritative discussion of how to you Type 55, and many other Polaroid films, read Ansel Adams book on "Polaroid Land Photography". I read this and got decent results with negatives the first time through. He rates the Type 55 negative at ASA 25.

[lwg]

There have been several mentions of 1 to 4 tbs of Sodium Sulfite. The instructions say 1 pound (16 oz) in 70 fl oz. Does the much smaller dilution works as well? I have only followed the directions, and gotten fine results, but would like to use less sodium sulfite if I want to mix some up on the road.

[tom_perkins]

I agree with Art Haykin. Process for a minute. There's also a good article by George DeWolfe in View Camera within the last year. Good luck.

[daniel_blakeslee]

George DeWolfe seems to really love the negatives he gets from Type 55. He knows how to expand and contract development using the packet chemicals. He then scans them since they are perfect for that. Some people even remove the exposed negatives without processing and develop them in the chemicals of their choice. I heard that Type 55 is really the old Panatomic-X. Is that correct?

[bob.]

Your exposure seems on the money for 50 ASA (sunny-16 rule) but as suggested above, 20-30 ASA is a better rating for the neg. Also as stated above, the development seems almost impossible to overdo, so give it 50% extra time for your ambient temperature at the time of development "for safety". The data sheet on the Polaroid web site has times for different temperatures.

[steve_feldman2]

WOW!

 

You guys post answers almost as fast as Polaroid developes film.

 

Thanks to all of you. I think I've got it now.

 

-Steve

[winney]

Art,

 

You mention leaving Type 55 unprocessed after the shoot. I assume this means pulling it out of the 545 back, then at some later date reinserting it in the 545 back to process it. I like the idea of working this way so I can avoid taking chemistry on location. Can you tell me any pros and cons of this practice? Is there any time limit or is type 55 stable just like unprocessed film?

 

Thanks

 

Michael

[lwg]

Type 55's latent image is stable just like other black and white film. The chemicals will dry out so don't expect to be able to get a usable image in 20 years, but waiting a week or two to process will not be a problem.

 

My problem with doing this is that frequently I get processing artifacts and these can ruin the negative. So not knowing if the processing will be OK until I get home means taking at least two shots which adds to the expense.