jnanian

<blockquote> <p>2.7 -3.5.., I'm afraid to go higher to screw up the actual dof, when i want the swirlynes of 2.7 so I cleaned the glass, looks gery good, but outside its still very hard to get the focus right when the subject is far away.<br> normally i focus on eyelashes, so i have the contrast, but mybe asking the model to put something contrasty on her face would help? but whaat?</p> </blockquote> what i do is i stop down to about f4, and then open up again when i take the photograph. a bright light helps illuminate if you can't see the subject, and just turn the light off when you open up and expose the film

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

<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>

<p>hi jbuck</p> <p>sorry to ask but im not sure what fstop you are focusing ?<br> with uber fast lenses on LF i stop down a tad.<br> good luck !</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.<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<p>not sure what you mean by too slow<br> look for a wollensak 1a triple convertible.<br> 13 -20-24" sharp when it needs to be<br> not too slow, and they are sold in a bulletproof betax shutter.<br> also look for a 14" ( or bigger ) velostigmat or tessar. beautiful lenses<br> sharp when they need to be and pleasing oof areas.<br> good luck!</p>

<p>gowland pocket view</p>

http://www.digicamhistory.com/Xerox%20Model%20A%20sep.htmlee http://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/electrophotography-creating-photos-with-the-xerox-photocopying-process/

<blockquote> <p> * double post *</p> </blockquote>

<blockquote> <p>My main question is about the lens. It reads “5 X 7 Rapid Orthographic F- 8,” made by Wollensak. I can find very little about the lens. I’m pretty sure it is not a convertible lens but I could be wrong. Is it a Rapid Rectilinear type lens?</p> </blockquote> <p>the lens is what is called a triple convertible, it offers 3 focal lengths in 1 lens by taking off/changing<br /> around how the the lens elements are on the barrel. i tried to read the # to the right of all the f #' they tell the focal lengths<br /> of the different combinations i think i saw 8", 14" and i can't see if that is 18 or 28" so the elements<br /> assembled as you have them in that image would be the 8" lens, remove the front element would<br /> be the 14", and replacing the rear element with the front is the longest focal length.<br /> some companies did it so you assembled the front and rear element in reverse<br /> ( front on back and back onfront ) and it gave the shortest ( widest ) focal length.<br> you might be able to figure out exactly what lens you have by looking at this catalog<br> http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/wollensak_9.html<br> it might be listed as the symetrical triple focus lens.</p> <p>( its after all the portrait lenses )</p>

<p>why not? im not talking 1000$ new, im talking way less than that.<br> reinhold's wollaston lenses don't cost anywhere near that amount.<br> regarding eBay, it depends what kind of lens it is. if it is a brass lens<br> that sold for $350 10-years ago, it might be worth 20x that now, if it is a<br> wollensak raptar or ilex paragon, they are sleepers and dont' cost much ..<br> high quality ... bottom feeders won't pay for .. and eBay and other for sale places<br> ( including crag's list &c ) are mainly for bottom feeders .. or people searching<br> for the latest brass lens the internet buzzes about.</p> <p>YMMV</p>

<p>mr salomon, you forgot to mention graflex slr users / super d's<br> plenty of ways to shoot LF handheld. slrs are perfectly weighted. while i don't have<br> a 5x7 at my disposal from all reports they are as easy to use as the 4x5 and smaller models.</p>

<p>adox just reintroduced LUPEX paper.<br> its a silver chloride emulsion like azo + lodima.</p>

currently, 2016, are there many lens makers ? I know Reinhold makes Wollaston lenses, is there anyone else who makes or distributes affordable lenses ?

<p>porters is gone now but the magnets are still being sold<br> feel free to contact me for further information.</p>

<blockquote> <p>unbelievable !!</p> </blockquote> <p>quite unbelievable !</p> <p>the post was not directed towards you or your commerical enterprise, but towards<br> the moderation staff of this website LOL<br> you kind of need to lay off the knee-jerk rude responses ?<br> believe it or not, i also make and sell things, and have for a long time, but when i actually ASKED<br> the admin staff i was told informative threads ( like this one ) would be deleted and weren't allowed.<br> this was IDK 7 years ago when i was a litte more acitve than i am now ( mainly because i grew tired of the <br> flame wars, and tit for tat nasty posts )<br> now that i know informative / infomercial / feature benefit posts are permitted, i will start making them here in this forum<br> and others.<br> and for the record, if it matters, i don't want, and have never wanted one of your cameras. i make cameras myself,<br> i make lenses, too, and i have no need for a polaroid conversion, best of luck with your feature and benefit thread !</p> <p>=== good luck drew</p>

<p>i thought advertisements on this site were prohibited ?</p> <blockquote> <h3>4 Conduct of Users</h3> <p>Your right to access and use the Site is subject to the following prohibitions:<br> You may not use the Site to advertise products or services, to solicit users to buy or sell products or services, or to make donations of any kind, without first obtaining the express written approval ofphoto.net. The only exception to this rule is that private parties may use the classified section to sell personal property.</p> </blockquote>

<p>@john layton<br /> while it is sort of ez to make a sheet of film look / behave like a reversal in certain light, as i look at the image the OP uploaded it doesn't look at all like an ambrotype/tintype type photograph, but something printed on POP or albumenized paper. the tonality is ortho-type / old school dry plate ( or similar ) emulsion, and the print looks like it was long scale UV or salted gelatin ( azo type ) that might have been toned a little bit. it has that <em>classic </em>1920s/teens look to it. maybe i am way off, but it looks like the stack of portraits i have from the late teens early 20s ...</p>

<p>WL<br> have you considered coating your own <em>dry</em> plates using either self made ( go to thelightfarm.com to learn now ) or store bought silver gelatin emulsion ? it might give you the results you are looking for.</p>

<p>in an issue of polaroid's "test" magazine ( 25 years ago ) they explained how to do it with their materials. i am certain you can do it with current materials. it didn't require exotic toning &c.</p>

<p>there's nothing wrong with shooting paper instead of film, do it and enjoy it.<br> good luck !</p>