Why Are My Polaroids Sharper Than My Proofs?

[Scott Rosenberg]

good day...

i've got a real head scratcher here; i even put it to the guys at my lab and they couldn't give me a satisfactory answer.

this past weekend i took my 'new' tech IV out to do an engagement shoot. i was using polaroid type 54 film with a 545i back and neopan across 100 with the fuji readyload holder.

i just recieved the contact sheets back from the lab, and when i compare them to the polaroids, they are neither as contrasty or sharp! i was expecting the polaroids to be inferior to the proofs, when they are, in fact, the best pictures of the lot.

any ideas as to why the polaroids look so much better than the proofs?

film flatness in the backs? poor printing of the contact sheets? has anybody experienced this?

thanks, scott

[Dean Cookson]

I've certainly seen professional labs contact print proofs with the negatives in the storage pages. That tends to not do anything good to the print sharpness or contrast. How do the negatives look under a loupe? Are they sharp and contrasty? If so, it was probably the printing.

[Darin Cozine]

Proofs are just that: proofs. whereas polaroids are an original photograph/negative. Incidentaly, I got to see some of the slides of the huge 20x24 polaroid viewcam in action last weekend. I must say that I was impressed.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Look at the negs with a loupe on a light table to see if they are sharp. That will help you rule out the lab's proofing procedure as a source of the problem. If they were proofing the negs in the sleeves or with inadequate pressure, that would explain the problem.

It would be normal for the negs to be sharper than the Polaroids, but not the other way around as you are reporting.

If the Polaroids are sharper than the negs (setting aside the contacts), I suspect your groundglass is out of registration (or from the glass half full perspective--your groundglass is in registration with your Polaroid holder, but not with your Readyload holders), or there is a film flatness problem with the Readyloads, or perhaps the Readyload holder wasn't inserted or loaded properly. You might try a couple of regular filmholders just to rule out problems associated with the Readyloads before sending the camera for adjustment.

[CXC]

Though I have no complaints about their enlargements, the lab I use is somewhat careless about proofs. Maybe a nicer way of stating it would be that they keep the cost of proofs as low as possible. Seems like the most likely explanation for your problem as well.

Please let us know what you find out, this is interesting and useful.

[Gary J. McCutcheon]

I've used type 54 polaroid for years as a composition and exposure test for 4x5 and 120 transparency film. It is very accurate for this purpose, but I've never found it sharper than the transparencies. The polaroids are usually softer and are only good exposure indicators. The film is right on when testing for transparency exposure. I've used type 55 for the negative and it is always sharp, but the print always leaves a bit to be desired as far as exposure and sharpness. Your contact proofs may not be flat or, as other posts have indicated, the contacts may be printed through the neg. preservers. Check with your lab. Labs need lots of communication.

Gary

[Scott Atkinson]

Not to muddy the waters, but there's one other possibility. You're using two different backs--the Polaroid back and the Fuji Quickload. It's always possible that they're not aligning in the exact same film plane. When I'm proofing with 4x5 Polaroid, I leave the 545 back in place and shoot the quickload/readyload final film with that, too. That said, I do know a lot of people who switch to the second, supposedly flatter back for the "real" film, and seem to have no problem, either.

[tor kviljo]

Some of the newer Polaroid emulsions are very sharp, and are promoted by Polaroid as suitable for final art (through scanning). I belive the Pro100 is the one most favored here, and I don't know if the 54 is using emulsion dev. from this one & thus benefiting from high resolution positives, but I had great results when I (a brief & expensive periode) were experimenting with the 8"x10" machine using 809 Polacolor: a series of still-life including plants with minute details were impressively sharp - could hardly be improved upon as resolution/sharpeness allready were in the "need for loupe" category. I would have loved to use the pola a bit more, but expenses ruled this out as the 809 were about $$ 250 a case (15 exp) here in Norway.

[Scott Rosenberg]

thanks everyone... i'm in dallas, texas and have been using BWC for years. however, the last several jobs i've had them do i've been very disappointed with. guess it's time to start shopping for a new lab.

the contacts were printed through the sleve... i can see the text from the top of the sleve on my sheets. what's more, the letters go in and out of focus, so i suspect someone forgot to put a piece of glass over the sheet.

i just went back to the lab and dropped off the negs, contact prints, and polaroid, and they begrudgingly agreed to print the proofs again after their technicians look over my material. once i hear back from them, i'll post their findings.

a couple of newbie questions: -if my groundglass was in fact out of registration, wouldn't both the polaroid and the negs have been soft, as i focused on the groudglass for both?

-if i just use the 545i holder for the readyloads and quickloads, am i asking for film flatness problems? does anyone just use the polaroid holder as a do-it-all?

that the 545i holder and the fuji readyload holder may not be equidistant from the groundglass makes sense... i guess i'll run a few tests with using the neopan in the polaroid holder and see what results. the only other pictures i've taken were with a grafmatic backs that leaked, though the chromes i got back that weren't ruined seemed to be sharp.

thanks again! scott

[Scott Rosenberg]

cxc, et al-

BWC went back and checked the equipment used to make my contact sheets, and they found that the foam pad that keeps the paper flush against the glass had deteriorated and needed to be replaced. they are going make the necessary repairs and reprint my contact sheets.

i only hope this batch comes back as sharp as the polaroids... they looked GREAT!

BWC is a very highly regarded pro lab in the dallas-fort worth area - what is a bit alarming is that those contact sheets made it out without someone noticing. as i stated earlier, after several years of good service, i have been very disappointed by BWC my last few times in. i think it's time to start looking for a new lab... any recommendations for the DFW area?

thanks for all the great inputs earlier, scott