new55 kickstarter has begun

[rdenney]

Without being negative (pun intended), unless you are using the exact same film the new55 is (seems to be a secret), how can you use it to judge anything other then more of the same?

As for the bucket, they do say 1:1 fixer...



I am still trying to wrap my head around what and how to do with this.

No, they say 1:1 fixer for fixing the negative in a tray before washing and drying. They also suggest sooner is better with minimal light exposure. They don't say anything about the bucket.

Rick "unless they added it in the last day" Denney

[rdenney]

Put an 18% solution of sodium sulphite in the bucket.

Instructions for making the solution are in this data sheet http://www.markgavin.com/polaroid_fi..._50_posneg.pdf

I now have two boxes of PN film I bought, and 4 boxes of neg only film that I agreed to accept in lieu of the PN I backed.

My original intent was to use this film in two ways. First, was as a way to get quick results with my Travelwide. The second was to help confirm reasonably accurate exposure settings for my 11x14 camera (I have a 4x5 back for it.)

Now that the film is here, and I have a much better feel of what it will take to make this work, I may have to rethink my strategy. First, getting usable negatives really is not compatible with the Travelwide concept so that is probably out for now. Second, packing a tank full of sodium sulfite solution for my negatives increases my load when packing the 11x14 around so I either don't develop the film at all in the field, not acceptable. Or I toss away the negative. I am not too thrilled with that idea either.

It is becoming clear that my best option here is to use it only in the studio, or only with my 4x5 Cambo Monorail or my 4x5 Graflex out in the field. If that turns out to be true then these better be absolutely stunning negatives with atmosphere out the wazoo because the cost is far too high for this option.

I still really want to use this with my 11x14 (or 8x10) so I will continue to play around and see how it works out.

And just so this is absolutely clear, I still think the New55 project is a great idea. I just need to work out exactly how it fits in my personal workflow, if it does at all.

Some questions and points:

Have you used sodium sulfite with New55? From the T55 info sheet you provided (and thanks for doing that), it suggests that sodium sulfite provides sufficient fixing (except for hardening) and additionally has what is required to clean off the reagent. It says that standard fixer won't do that reliably. But New55 is supposed to be fixed directly, suggesting that standard (though strong) fixer will clean whatever they are using. My experience with 55 back in the deeps of time suggested that the anti-halation dyes would turn the solution blue in use, but I may be mixing that memory up wit something else. (Come to think of it, FP4 does the same thing.)

Sodium sulfite apparently prevents swelling of the negative if it sits for a long time, unlike regular fixer or water. (But Polaroid suggested that water would work for a short time).

The negative film or reagent they are using is different stuff. New55 recommends a 2-4-minute developing time (before peeling) and T55 was less than a minute. That difference informs my concern.

As to your use cases, I would think any Polaroid-type material could be used for checking you 11x14 setup. Try a pack-back with Fuji color film.

I can see why the palaver of the clearing tank and other paraphernalia associated with 55 is incompatible with an ultralight travel camera. I think I'm with you on that. But I may use the Travelwide without traveling, and as a straight wide-angle landscape camera, it's much more convenient than my Sinar even when I'm going no farther than my yard. So, I still might use it with that camera some. A real question is whether the 545 will fit. I also have that question about the Fuji Quickload holder.

For me, this is a way to get a negative without having to carve out the time to make the darkroom thing work. I've spent days, weeks, years in the darkroom and have discovered I just don't like doing it. It holds me back from doing large-format work more than anything. Sending stuff off to a lab is only slightly less odious to me. I might make 15 negatives a year, so the price is not a problem, though I don't want to use up a two-year supply just experimenting.

Rick "surprised that the developers have not verified the field-processing use case in their early testing" Denney

[BobCrowley]

Some questions and points:

Have you used sodium sulfite with New55? From the T55 info sheet you provided (and thanks for doing that), it suggests that sodium sulfite provides sufficient fixing (except for hardening) and additionally has what is required to clean off the reagent. It says that standard fixer won't do that reliably. But New55 is supposed to be fixed directly, suggesting that standard (though strong) fixer will clean whatever they are using. My experience with 55 back in the deeps of time suggested that the anti-halation dyes would turn the solution blue in use, but I may be mixing that memory up wit something else. (Come to think of it, FP4 does the same thing.)

Sodium sulfite apparently prevents swelling of the negative if it sits for a long time, unlike regular fixer or water. (But Polaroid suggested that water would work for a short time).

The negative film or reagent they are using is different stuff. New55 recommends a 2-4-minute developing time (before peeling) and T55 was less than a minute. That difference informs my concern.

As to your use cases, I would think any Polaroid-type material could be used for checking you 11x14 setup. Try a pack-back with Fuji color film.

I can see why the palaver of the clearing tank and other paraphernalia associated with 55 is incompatible with an ultralight travel camera. I think I'm with you on that. But I may use the Travelwide without traveling, and as a straight wide-angle landscape camera, it's much more convenient than my Sinar even when I'm going no farther than my yard. So, I still might use it with that camera some. A real question is whether the 545 will fit. I also have that question about the Fuji Quickload holder.

For me, this is a way to get a negative without having to carve out the time to make the darkroom thing work. I've spent days, weeks, years in the darkroom and have discovered I just don't like doing it. It holds me back from doing large-format work more than anything. Sending stuff off to a lab is only slightly less odious to me. I might make 15 negatives a year, so the price is not a problem, though I don't want to use up a two-year supply just experimenting.

Rick "surprised that the developers have not verified the field-processing use case in their early testing" Denney

I've field processed it the same as in-house. Just like old T55 which New55 really only resembles in form, the use of buckets and so forth "out in the field" is a pain in the neck that I avoid. I shot plenty of T55 and New55 here there and everywhere and always ended up processing one on site, and save the rest for processing later.

Don't use sodium sulfite unless you want to experiment, and in that case tell us of your experiences. Do use 50/50 water and Ilford rapid fixer and get the peeled negative in there immediately. Fix for a couple of minutes while wiggling to remove the goo. Some people coax the goo off with a gloved finger. Then wash for several minutes. Leaving any of these DTR negatives in the wash for too long will result in separation - same as T55.

But this is NOT T55. Throw away the T55 instructions as they will just confuse everyone.

Mind the Gap! The 545 holder, now decades old, has a roller and spring mechanism that you must disassemble and clean. Otherwise you will get a tight gap and mottled negative. Pull slowly. There are excellent 545 cleaning instructions on Youtube, and it is essential since some processing goo always gets into the rollers eventually, and you need to get that out right away, so knowing how to quickly disassemble, clean and reassemble the holder is as important as knowing how to run the camera.

Processing instructions are at http://new55.net and other useful bits, too. We are a very small group of volunteers and some paid assemblers. Please keep this in mind when you visit the site - we are not website developers, but if you are, we'd like to talk with you.

The negative is not a secret. It is the same negative as 1SHOT ready loaded film, which we also sell for conventional processing. This is a single-layer, cubic grained medium speed emulsion we named Atomic-X. If you look around at the photographs being made with this excellent film I think you will understand the name. The developer and times affect the speed of this film greatly which is why you may see different recommended ISO ratings. We simply do not have staff to test every possible combination.

I'd hope you first use these products close to home, and with a confirmed 545 holder.

The support of this and other communities new to 4x5 photography is fantastic and much appreciated by all of us with the same aim - to make large format photography accessible and able to continue. The products are in their infancy and are not anything like those made before. New55 is at the earliest stages of production so nobody has all the information we will have in the coming months or years, assuming we achieve a steady state.

[rdenney]

Bob, thank you for responding. With considerable respect for what you are doing (and I am an enthusiastic backer, even to the extent of buying film in addition to my as-yet undelivered backer boxes), the whole point of a film like this is to process in the field, so that the photographer knows what he got. The field does not come with a wash faucet. So, unless we abandon the principle use case, we need to find a safe way to deal with the negative in the field. What happens if it sits in a hardening fixer for two hours? What about going through a hardening fixer and into a different bucket with water in it for two hours? I'm happy to experiment, but at $15 a packet, I simply can't afford to be the tester. Surely there are ways to test the film more cheaply without wasting an entire expensive retail positive and packet assembly.

Rick "surprised this question hasn't been asked before" Denney

[BobCrowley]

Rick - Yes I know who you are and grateful - we consider you part of the team like others who have supported the project. T55 could sit a while in "the bucket" before being dissolved and lost. All this has been tested and dissolution is what will happen to these DTR negatives if they soak too long. They are soft and the best thing is to fix immediately, wash, then dry. The instructions do give a processing time so if you want to increase times, and try other chemicals outside the gamut, and are successful, please tell us of it. But I did not suggest you do. I can tell you about my most recent field shoot: We brought camera film holder trays buckets tripods and much else to the location. And an assistant. And the model too plus an onlooker. At that shoot we did process everything and by the end of the afternoon we had seven dried negatives, some which have been published. I don't think I could have done it myself. Same with T55. I recall one time at Hemlock Gorge in Newton, MA with my car and buckets on the floor of the car to deal with the negative. This was successful. Had I carried these to a more distant location I would have needed a helper, but that time I managed. You can too, within reason. That's the way it has been since before us. FYI - the current production cost is much higher than $15, at present.

[AuditorOne]

Sorry for the T55 instructions but I was definitely under the impression that the New55 film was based on T55.

I have not used any sodium sulfide yet but I may on one of my negative only sleeves as a test.

Obviously I will need to rethink my intended use for this film.

[rdenney]

Okay, Bob, that clarifies it.

I do have plenty of experience with T55, by the way, both in 4x5 and in the much peskier pack film, which had an opaque black back coating that would have to be wiped off. I never got further the the sulfite tank on site.

But I bet there's a way to do this without running water. I'm thinking a bottle each of fixer, water 1, water 2, and maybe even water 3. One of the water baths would have hypo clearing agent, and the last would have photoflow. Then, slide into an empty Polaroid clearing tank for drying. The positive would show whether the steps were worth the trouble. I think a hardening fixer might be nice. What do you think, three minutes in each water bath?

With the right kind of bottles (probably more like Tupperware containers), the taco method should work rather than fighting trays, for doing one negative at a time.

Then, one could check the final bottle for fixer degradation back home, and if found, wash the negatives again.

Rick "or something like that" Denney

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm not going to bother processing it in the field. I'll shoot it and take it home. The same way I handled old 55. Can't wait!

[towolf]

What I don’t understand, why the need for a big bucket? When I used up my two boxes of Type55, I brought a small 100ml bottle of sodium metabisulfite and a small 4x5 tray. After the shot I would swish the negs in the tray for a couple minutes until the goo floated off and then clipped the negs to something like a bush for drying. This worked fine and I got no dust or damage issues. You can wash later at home.

[Richard Johnson]

Like a lot of you, I sent the New Type 55 Project $75 via Kickstarter a couple of years ago. Since then I get the weekly emails and pleas for more money, the laundry list of setbacks, etc. I wish them well but I sometimes wonder if I'll ever see any actual film from it? Now I see that they are able to slowly manufacture the film in small batches and are selling it to raise more money to continue. And I think I understand that they have fulfilled some of the original $75 Kickstarter obligations.

Did I read this right? Is there a chance that a box of film may arrive in my mailbox sometime this year? That I don't have to contribute more money and I'll still get my film, just like promised way back when?

Has anyone received theirs?

And how is it?

I do wish them well but I do regret contributing since five sheets isn't really enough to embark on anything other than a novelty and the downside has been more solicitations for donations and money than if I contributed to a political action committee. I'd like to just get my film and click "unsubscribe" immediately afterwards. Never again will I use Kickstarter!