Quality of Polaroid 55 pos/neg film?

[sung]

Hi all,

As I don't have darkroom access, I am considering using Polaroid 55 film which can be processed in daylight.

Does Polaroid film lack sharpness and can 16x20 quality images be produced from this film or are people using this film only to check exposure?
How would it compare to the quality of other films (I use Provia 100F and Acros)?

Any weblinks to photographers who are using this film?

Thanks.

Sung

[Gary Beasley]

Though the prints may be fuzzy the negs are quite sharp and if exposed right the tonality is right up there with the best. I'm told the actual neg material is Panatomic-X or something like it so it's very fine grained.

[Vaughn]

The negative is very good. One does lack development contraols, but one can selenium tone the neg for a bump in contrast.

I have made several 16x20 prints from them...sharp and fine-grained. Keep the rollers clean, though. Dirty rollers can play havoc in areas of even tonality.

Vaughn

[Chris Strobel]

Hi all,

As I don't have darkroom access, I am considering using Polaroid 55 film which can be processed in daylight.

Does Polaroid film lack sharpness and can 16x20 quality images be produced from this film or are people using this film only to check exposure?
How would it compare to the quality of other films (I use Provia 100F and Acros)?

Any weblinks to photographers who are using this film?

Thanks.

Sung

I use type 55 just for the negative.If you go to Flikr they have a Polaroid type 55 group with lots of images.I printed this out at 16x20 from a Epson 4990 scan of a type 55 neg,Its sharp as a tack.Only downside is its pricey.

[g zuili]

Negative from 55 and 655 are panatomic. Very sharp with unique softness. I have some prints up to 3 feet. No problem.

[sung]

..just saw price of film...ouch!

Thanks for the feedback.

[Gary Beasley]

Yeah, ouch. Think about the price of a 4x5 tank and a changing bag to load the film in. All your work can happen on the kitchen table. Contact prints at night or scan the negs, darkroom not needed.

[Vaughn]

Yes, it is very expensive, but those of us who use 8x10 or larger, it does not seem all that bad (everything is relative!)

Another advantage is traveling -- Type 55 shares the same advantages of ready-loads in space and weight. Plus the additional advantage of being able to field check one's exposure, composition and focus when one comes across an image that is a must-have shot.

When traveling, I always back the exposed Type 55 out of the holder without processing -- I then process it back home under better conditions. This is required when I have exposed Type 55 in 25F weather.

But if one is on the road, a couple of trays or tanks, a little Sodium sulfite, photo-flo, and a clothes line, one can process film in the motel room. No worries about transporting undeveloped film and a way to check on the day's work.

Here is a website of a photographer who uses Type 55...

www.elaineling.com

Vaughn

[tim atherton]

there's also Mark Klett (I think that's type 55 he uses?)

http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/...ographics.html

and Tom Baril (love the music - sure beats that euro/techno-pop so many german Post-Neue Sachlichkeit photographers seem to like putting on their flash sites... mind you the rest of the site is a bit annoying in places)

http://www.tombaril.net/

or some of Toshio Shibata's work

http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/...o-shibata.html

[Frank Petronio]

a few examples, I made 30x40s and they looked fine, but I am a slob