new55 kickstarter has begun

[Andrew O'Neill]

The receiver sheet is for the positive, correct? Worse case scenario, could they not run it without the receiver sheet until they sort out the problem? I'd be happy with just an instant negative.

[Larry Kellogg]

The receiver sheet is for the positive, correct? Worse case scenario, could they not run it without the receiver sheet until they sort out the problem? I'd be happy with just an instant negative.

I would think that it needs the receiver sheet for the whole process to work, but, like you, I don't care much about the positive and can live with throwing it away. I'll be printing the best shots in the darkroom anyway. Of course, it'll be a bummer to not have a positive to check exposure, but I can read a negative.

[StoneNYC]

Well that escalated quickly....

5 4x5 images for $500!

$100/image... Yeash!

137001

[Larry Kellogg]

Just because someone asks, it doesn't mean anybody is going to pay that ridiculous price

You can do a lot of bracketing for $100.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I hate people like him.

[wcarroll]

The receiver sheet is for the positive, correct? Worse case scenario, could they not run it without the receiver sheet until they sort out the problem? I'd be happy with just an instant negative.

This is exactly what I was thinking. An instant negative alone would be a great thing if the receiver sheet cannot be sorted out.

[Degroto]

Hi guys,

Sorry for the late response. I'll answer some questions now:
@Stonenyc:
1) I have noticed that you can leave the lever on P and sometimes the film comes right out. If it gets stuck I move it to L.
2) According to the supportpage first fix then rinse. I just followed that.
https://new55film.zendesk.com/hc/en-us

@Andrew I used iso 100 the first photos but the positives where a little light. After that I used iso200. Good positives and good negatives. I haven't done a side by side comparison but I am happy with the iso200 results.

@feppe about washing and fixing. the negative. I would recommend do it straight after processing. I let to negatives dry just to this this out But I had trouwbles getting the goo washed off completely. So Either process it and cleaned straight away or process later when you can clean it safely.

I haven't washed or coated the positive yet. Also on the support page you can find info what to use if you want to coat the positive. I have no experience with that yet.

Lets hope New55 solve the problems and everybody gets to shoot this marvelous product.

[DrJackson]

I am really enthused! That has potential to be a sensation!

[EdSawyer]

Even at $18/shot for the positive and negative, this stuff is overly pricey, IMNSHO. $18/ea for instant 4x5 negs, with no positive? I doubt that would have a lot of takers. Hopefully they do get it sorted.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I read their update today. I sure hope they get it sorted asap. In the mean time, just produce an instant negative. I never bothered with T55's positive anyways. In future, they could give us negative only backers a decent discount on next purchase.

[Larry Kellogg]

The news is disappointing and shows how large manufacturers can handle the cost of failure while we have no margin for error.

I think people should do whatever would give them the best chance of succeeding in the future. If that is negative only, so be it.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I bet that the majority of the backers would go for a negative only product. Sell some as well, and over time, use that money to R&D the receiver sheet.

[towolf]

I never bothered with T55's positive anyways.

But with Type55 it was different because their film had a special something to it.

Now in the knowledge that probably you will get something like Foma 100 in a fancy envelope at a big markup, it’s not so enticing, is it?

[Andrew O'Neill]

Maybe it's Foma 400….:D

[Degroto]

When production will start the price will be at a lower rate then is on the website now. The price of $85,00 is a fundraising price. :-)

[towolf]

Maybe it's Foma 400….:D

Just overlaid the few examples of the first batch negatives that are online with a scan of Foma 100, and the notch does not match. Dunno if that means anything.

Which other current brands have a shallow semi-circular notch?


http://i.imgur.com/Rp75BXo.gif

[Steve Goldstein]

There's no guarantee that this is a standard film from any manufacturer, so the notch code may not carry much meaning.

An earlier new55 press release said the film was being made in the Shanghai Shenbei factory, so I doubt it's Foma...

[StoneNYC]

They said they had sustainability in mind and wanted a film from a company that would be around a long time. I'm guessing it's ilford.

When Arista was the ilford film, (before it became Foma) it had a notch code like that.

[vinny]

Not to continue off track..........In addition to what steve and stone said, notch codes don't mean much because they can be different for the same film. For example: the notches for fp4 and arista 125 weren't the same but they were both fp4.

[Kevin Harding]

Just overlaid the few examples of the first batch negatives that are online with a scan of Foma 100, and the notch does not match. Dunno if that means anything.

Which other current brands have a shallow semi-circular notch?


http://i.imgur.com/Rp75BXo.gif

Shanghai GP3 has a similar notch.

[Kevin Harding]

just wondering if any Canadian members have gotten their film yet ?

Hey Fred - just thought I should note I just got my shipment notification for my New55 PN.

[rdenney]

So, I have a box sitting here in front of me. No, it's not the boxes promised in return for the Kickstarter backing, but rather one I bought. After all the kvetching about the Travelwide not providing enough updates, blah, blah, I find that outcomes are more important than commiseration. Ben and Justin have remained committed to their backers first. But that's another story. I get why they are sellign the stuff, but I had to swallow a good bit of irritation to buy a box when I'd already bought two.

I opened the box and there are five packets, quite pricey, but not one shred of instruction on what to do with them. After considerable digging and some whining on the Kickstarter comment thread, I found this: http://www.new55.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/New55_PN_Directions_for_Use_v2.pdf It was rather disappointing not to find a printout of that in the box, to be honest.

But there are unanswered questions, such as: They instruct one to fix the negative immediately after peeling it, and in limited light. Huh? How's one supposed to do that in the field? Am I missing something? Polaroid went into a sodium sulfite solution, and Polaroid made a field tank for storing negatives in that solution. Can one store a negative in the minimally diluted fixer they recommend (Ilford Rapid Fixer 1:1 out of the bottle) until getting back to a sink? Do I need to keep that old Polaroid carrying tank in a light-tight bag? Do I need to forget the notion of developing in the field? If so, what's the point?

Rick "not much of a studio guy" Denney

[koh303]

Thats not all. Looks like you also have to wash the neg following the fixer (makes sense), but how could you possibly do this in the field?
With the cost, and limitation to indor use for actual instant photography, one might as well be shooting IP 8X10 films, which, if you happen to own one of those hand cranked processors can really be used in the field.

Now, you can shoot FPXXX stuff in the field, keep the "negative side" in a moist state, then recover it as an actual negative when you are back home, perhaps for the same amount of time the new55 PN negative post treatment would take, but with the ability to actually use it in the field.

[Larry Kellogg]

I have a bunch of boxes of the "Negative only" shipment and am also trying to figure out how to use it in the field. Thanks for the link to the instructions. I have sodium sulfite and one of those buckets, do I really need to carry fixer in the field? Can I look at the negative after shooting it? That would be the point, after all, of checking exposure.

Can we stick to discussing NEW55? I'm not going to shoot 8x10, too big and heavy, and the Fuji products are not the topic of this thread.

[jb7]

My New 55 hasn't arrived yet, I suppose I have to wait until it's my turn...

With the old 55, which I'm still using, you have 3 options for using it in the field.

You can save the print only, and discard the negative. Can't believe I used to do that, back in the old days...

You can carry around a wash tank, containing the sulfite or water. Even with water, don't leave it in too long, unless you want the image to wash away completely. I don't know what the maximum time is, though a few hours has proved to be safe. The plastic Polaroid tank weighs about 2kg, full, and can take 6 sheets safely, two more sheets in the less reliable outer slots.

Or, you can leave it undeveloped by removing the packet from the holder, without engaging the rollers and develop later. This is the least favorable option with my film, since you're not guaranteed that the development and transfer is100% reliable.

I don't think the new 55 is going to be much more odious in practice than the old stuff, though I have no idea about how long it's safe to leave it in the fixer...

[koh303]

http://www.adorama.com/DKTP.html

[Jim Cole]

Got my two boxes of New 55 yesterday. Now waiting on my Wanderlust 45 to show up so I can play.

Heading up to the Grand Canyon today for a couple of hours. Wish the camera was here!

[rdenney]

http://www.adorama.com/DKTP.html

I have the tank already. I'm wanting to know what to put in it besides negatives.

Rick "who could keep the tank in a light-tight back to miniseries light exposure" Denney

[AuditorOne]

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_films/t-55_iso_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.

[koh303]

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

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.)


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...


https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11139433_823470187771819_1310339242445640369_n.jpg?oh=51d71b6bac24685ce1cee871a2b18b74&oe=569F5528
I am still trying to wrap my head around what and how to do with this.

[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...


https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11139433_823470187771819_1310339242445640369_n.jpg?oh=51d71b6bac24685ce1cee871a2b18b74&oe=569F5528
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_films/t-55_iso_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!

[jb7]

Like you, I pledged my $75 and am still waiting for my reward. However, I have no problem waiting for my fulfilment. I understood that the risks were great, and that I was backing a project who’s aims were the production of an alternative to Polaroid T55, to be available as long as there is a market for it.

I assume that the combination of materials, chemistry, processes, machinery, and facilities used to produce this film is a lot more exacting than baking a cake- if it were simple, then I’m sure I would have had my cake already, and eaten it. As a backer, I was not buying a cake, I was pledging my support in building a bakery, so that I could have my cake whenever I felt like it.

I don’t think people should back someone else’s project unless they can afford to, and unless they share the passion of those who are risking a lot more to bring an idea to fruition, as outlined by the aims of the project, and are willing to share those risks to the extent of their pledge. All projects entail some risk; unless a kickstarter project already has a product boxed and ready to ship, you should be prepared to go along for the ride.

Kickstarter is, to some extent, entertainment- just as a visit to Vegas is entertainment. You’re paying to be part of it, and barring those few projects which are so badly run so as to verge on fraud, there is usually some kind of payout, in the end. The risks and challenges section should not be overlooked when you’re preparing to make your pledge, and that’s something you won’t find printed on a Blackjack table. Those who have an idea they think is worth pursuing will often be risking far more than those faces in the crowd who contribute the relatively small amounts which enable the project to go forward. If you want to be sure of a return, perhaps putting your money in a carefully selected bank would be the better option.

I welcome the frequent updates, and I look forward to my film- which I expect will be an improvement on the film shipping now, due to their continuing R&D. I may never be able to buy it in sufficient quantities to be able to understand its nuances, but as somebody who appreciates the qualities of the original film I was happy to be able to contribute to the development of its replacement, and look forward to a future where I will be able to buy it fresh again, someday…

[Willie]

Civilians? Are they selling to the Military first?

[feppe]

Like you, I pledged my $75 and am still waiting for my reward. However, I have no problem waiting for my fulfilment. I understood that the risks were great, and that I was backing a project who’s aims were the production of an alternative to Polaroid T55, to be available as long as there is a market for it.

I pledged an order of a magnitude more, as I feel this might very well be the last chance we have in the return of such instant film - and I need instant film for my LF photography. That was also my vote to show the company there is a need for such a product, and I put my money where my mouth is.

New55 will not survive unless we actually spend money on the product. I hope there are enough hipsters to keep the project going after they get into mass production, but getting it up and running is up to the more dedicated film shooters.

Having backed 45 projects on KS I expect I have more experience than most here. Delays are par for the course. I believe I've never had a project with physical goods deliver on time, with months of delays being the norm. Two have been utter disappointments from quality perspective, not fit for the intended purpose; one of them a magnetic lens cap retainer which delivered over a year late IIRC.

I'm certain that creating a "new" film basically from ground up is hard. Not rocket science (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/moonspike/moonspike-the-worlds-first-crowdfunded-moon-rocket) hard, but really hard nevertheless. We've already seen some major setbacks in the project, but they are well on their way to make a sustainable project. Therefore I'd much prefer the New55 project to take their time to ensure the product is of high quality, rather than rushing it out the door to meet some more or less arbitrary deadline.

Another good thing about the project is that they have been more forthcoming than pretty much all projects I've been part of. They have shared the wins and losses, and send frequent updates on progress to their backers. This is very unusual on KS, and shows these guys really care about the product, and their customers.

Fortunately I still have some Fuji instant film left, and so does my retailer, which might explain my patience further :) In fact, I emailed Sam Hiser in July to delay my shipment if necessary to send to those who are more impatient than I.

They have re-started pledge shipments, so it's slowly going forward.

[Fred L]

Finally exposed my first frame and it's what I imagined it to be at this stage and probably a bit better. No probs with the not quite mint 545 holder (one of probably 8-10 I've accumulated haha)I got at a camera show for a mere $20 US ;)))

One thing very different from T55 so far is that the negative, as noted in the instructions, should be shielded from light after the peel. After fixing, it showed what appears to be some slight solarization in some areas. Will scan and see how it looks. The negative had a very strong blue anti halation layer that needed Perma Wash to remove (almost instantaneously!)

So to Bob and the New55 team, thank you !

I am more than happy and can't wait for order fulfilment and continued refinement !

[letchhausen]

I contributed to the Film Ferrania kickstarter and it, like almost all KS projects I've contributed to, is behind the schedule as well (Italian bureaucracy, who knew?). I like the Vegas analogy, it's like I mailed a check to a casino there and said "Put it all on red!" I hope to get a return but my expectation is that someone give the wheel a spin. If the money was an issue I wouldn't have done it. I'm far from rich but only gave what I could afford to throw down the drain.

[europanorama]

I contributed to the Film Ferrania kickstarter and it, like almost all KS projects I've contributed to, is behind the schedule as well (Italian bureaucracy, who knew?). I like the Vegas analogy, it's like I mailed a check to a casino there and said "Put it all on red!" I hope to get a return but my expectation is that someone give the wheel a spin. If the money was an issue I wouldn't have done it. I'm far from rich but only gave what I could afford to throw down the drain.
You seem not have read their report about pollution inside building. asbest(dont know english word). thats very serious, dangerous for health.

[Paul Cunningham]

No probs with the not quite mint 545 holder (one of probably 8-10 I've accumulated haha)I got at a camera show for a mere $20 US ;)))
My first frame pulled from the holder too quickly, ruining it. I was more careful with my second, and had good results.


One thing very different from T55 so far is that the negative, as noted in the instructions, should be shielded from light after the peel.
I concur with this wholeheartedly.

(I too am still waiting for my (two) boxes, but bought a 'fund-raiser' box in the meantime.) I can be patient, as I have a couple left and the production process is continuously improving.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I wonder when mine will arrive...

[koh303]

Today another update.
It reads like the writers are struggling to find some ray of sunshine in a sea of gloom to tell us about, and the rest is the same repeat of how bad things are because 1-2-3.
This is turning out to be a project with all and only negative updated, am i the only one who sees it this way?

[AuditorOne]

From what I read it all boils down to cash. They need a big cash infusion by the end of the year or the project may not be able to continue. The current sale of product is enough to keep them afloat for now, but not to pay off their current bills. And new bills will come up next year. It also seems to effect the supply chain. They do not say so but I suspect that new components must be paid for as they are received, not on a revolving credit arrangement.

That is how I read it. Not very encouraging but still hoping it all works out.

[HMG]

I would hope that one of the three film manufacturers they've worked with would provide technical support at no cost and film at cost (initially). A rising tide lifts all boats.

[feppe]

From what I read it all boils down to cash. They need a big cash infusion by the end of the year or the project may not be able to continue. The current sale of product is enough to keep them afloat for now, but not to pay off their current bills. And new bills will come up next year. It also seems to effect the supply chain. They do not say so but I suspect that new components must be paid for as they are received, not on a revolving credit arrangement.

That is how I read it. Not very encouraging but still hoping it all works out.

The only ways to encourage and fix things is to buy the things, and spread the word.

I'm hoping to get my first batch before my studio shoot in three weeks.

[AuditorOne]

Yes. Buying is always good. I buy when the budget allows but the film is very expensive. So far I have developed a small stock. I had actually considered using the film for an upcoming project, but unless I get a backer I may not be able to afford to do it.

For my part, I am rather curious on how people see themselves using this film. There are not many examples available on line to see what is happening. Will the film be used as a stand alone material or will it be used to supplement other capture methods using much larger formats? If you are using it regularly has it worked out the way you thought?

[Kodachrome25]

A friend of mine who is an excellent portrait photographer contributed like I did to the Kickstarter awhile back. While waiting for her reward she went ahead and bought some of the for sale batch currently offered, 10 packets. Now...she loves to use instant film and does gorgeous work with it but is fine with small contact prints too since that is what the 4x5 "Roid" basically amounts to anyway if one discounts the negative.

Well....we decided to do a little experiment yesterday in comparing workflows, did it both in the studio and outside of the horse stables. I brought over a motor base and expert drum and we also shot some HP5. Even with poring over every little detail in getting the most out of the 55, we were pretty taken aback by just how hard it was to arrive at a clean neg / print from the 55 packets. Our first couple of packets saw blotchy prints and negs and all 5 we tried had a big chunk of emulsion that had corrupted in the top portion of both the print and negative.

Now...this is not a slam on New 55, and we are both very patient & technically proficient photographers...but man, even if the goal is an intimate 4x5 sized print we found it to be exponentially easier to arrive at that via using a good film and then contact printing it rather than go through the ***very*** expensive hoop jumping process of dealing with the instant film and print sandwich.

So given how tight these poor folks are on cash, how tough the product is to produce actual pro level work with and lord knows the price...well we wish them the best but wonder how this will all actually pan out. Neither my friend or I have a problem in paying top dollar for good consistent quality materials in order to arrive at a professional level repeatable result. But even at half the price being sold at now, this is just far too experimental to be buying into at this stage.

Hopefully they emerge victorious, I know some folks are counting on it.

[Paul Cunningham]

Hurray, my reward film has arrived! The product continues to iterate, this is from a revised batch that processes for 4 minutes instead of the original 6 minutes. I'll be shooting some soon.

[feppe]

My KS package arrived! Just in time as I have a studio shoot next weekend.

I'll try out something all the cool kids are doing: unboxing. And since I like to live on the edge, I'll do it live.

I recently signed up on Twitch Creative, so you can check it out at http://www.twitch.tv/harrytorque/ on Sunday at 10am CET / 4am EST. There's a chat option and I'll be on mic, so you can ask questions live.

If it works out I'll put it up on Youtube afterwards for those who can't join the live feed.

[Jim Cole]

Not the best of luck so far. First packet blew developer all over inside my 545 holder. After I cleaned that up, the second one came apart when I pulled the sleeve out to make the photo. Third was a repeat of the second. Three up, three down and no photo yet. I put the new55 away till another day to see what the heck I was doing wrong.

I have used this holder in the past with Polaroid film and never had an issue. I cleaned the rollers in prep for first use with the new55. Maybe I'm just having a bad day. Was breaking in the new Travelwide camera today as well.

Edit: Just thought of something. The new55 packets seemed awful puffy. I live at 7000 ft. Maybe the altitude change has something to do with it.

[adelorenzo]

New55 portraits of Johnny Depp and Sharon Stone just made an appearance in the LA Times.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jaylclendenin/status/667802005834895361

[Alan9940]

Hello Jim,

I don't think altitude has anything to do with any of the issues you observed. I live in the Phoenix area and have shot several boxes of New55, including my Kickstarter box, and have yet to get what I'd call a decent negative; positives weren't even close. I've had all the same issues you report as well as others. I have been in constant contact with the New55 team providing feedback, but at this point I've decided to take a "wait-n-see" attitude. I'd really, REALLY like to see this product be successful, but I can't personally shoot it for any serious work because I can't trust it. I know others have had great success with this film...I'm just not one of 'em.

Kind regards,
Alan

[Jim Cole]

Hello Jim,

I don't think altitude has anything to do with any of the issues you observed. I live in the Phoenix area and have shot 3 boxes of New55, including my Kickstarter box, and have yet to get what I'd call a decent negative; positives weren't even close. I've had all the same issues you report as well as others. I have been in constant contact with the New55 team providing feedback, but at this point I've decided to take a "wait-n-see" attitude. I'd really, REALLY like to see this product be successful, but I can't personally shot it for any serious work because I can't trust it. I know others have had great success with this film...I'm just not one of 'em.

Kind regards,
Alan

Alan,

Thanks for your comments. Glad I'm not the only one with issues. I was feeling pretty incompetent. As soon as I loaded my first packet and saw developer all over the place, I knew there were gonna be problems. I have 7 sheets left and when I'm ready for some more frustration and messy cleanups, I'll give it a shot again.

So your packets feel rather puffy before you load them, too? I thought maybe the decreased atmospheric pressure here in Flag had caused the sealed packets to expand more than normal causing them to blow apart when inserted into the holder.

[Alan9940]

So your packets feel rather puffy before you load them, too? I thought maybe the decreased atmospheric pressure here in Flag had caused the sealed packets to expand more than normal causing them to blow apart when inserted into the holder.

Yeah, after all the material I shot and having read glowing reports in various places I began to think that my 35 years of LF use taught me nothing! :) Back in the day, I shot a ton of Polaroid Type 52 and 55 and the only issue I ever had was not paying close enough attention to the pull and finding that I pulled too fast/slow. But, that was fully my mistake.

I wouldn't say they feel puffy, but they do feel thicker than any Polaroid packet I remember using. Honestly, I think that could be the key to "goo" all over the inside of the roller area. We're talking pretty tight tolerances here...how many thousands of an inch thicker could a packet be and still work properly? I have no clue. But, like you I discovered that the roller area was a total mess with "goo" when I couldn't get a packet into the holder! But, even from the very first packet (with pristine rollers) I found it unnecessarily difficult to load a packet. In other words, I couldn't start a packet, and then grab the end and push it home; rather, I had to start it, then grab each side of the packet up near the holder, and coax it in. This same scenario applied to two different holders, too, though my 545Pro seemed to work a little easier than my original 545.

Oh, and when the packet clips it doesn't sound right and I loose a bit of confidence that everything will work as it's supposed to. I found pulling the outer cover to make an exposure, and then pushing it back home difficult, too.

I don't mean to sound negative (pardon the pun)...simply reporting my experiences. I will keep an eye on New55 and will buy a box or two every once in awhile to see what progress has been made. Hopefully, one day I'll be able to return to shooting 4x5 instant film on a regular basis.

Kind regards,
Alan

[BobCrowley]

Thanks for your many constructive criticisms and recommendations.

We've improved the pod and eliminated leaks, improved the negative and its speed, corrected the reagent fill to a more precise fill, fixed the air in the pod problem which expanded above sea level, eliminated the "solarization" caused by chemical fogging, fixed the spread so that it covers much better, reduced the processing time by half, improved print density and tone dramatically so that the Dmax in particular is really black, eliminated the sepia color caused by the formation of Carey Lea silver - - all over the last four months.

Now we have to get the gap right. Tight gaps cause mottle. Polaroid suffered from this in the early days too. It's too tight in some holders, perhaps a perfect storm of old stiff rubber and paper manufacturing tolerances. This is the subject for today, and every day until this subject is also addressed. . Each batch has been small and we are seeing a combination of old batches and new in the results online.

Meanwhile, people are helping support the project along with all of you which we are grateful for!

http://new55.net

[Jim Cole]

Thanks for your many constructive criticisms and recommendations.

We've improved the pod and eliminated leaks, improved the negative and its speed, corrected the reagent fill to a more precise fill, fixed the air in the pod problem which expanded above sea level, eliminated the "solarization" caused by chemical fogging, fixed the spread so that it covers much better, reduced the processing time by half, improved print density and tone dramatically so that the Dmax in particular is really black, eliminated the sepia color caused by the formation of Carey Lea silver - - all over the last four months.

Now we have to get the gap right. Tight gaps cause mottle. Polaroid suffered from this in the early days too. It's too tight in some holders, perhaps a perfect storm of old stiff rubber and paper manufacturing tolerances. This is the subject for today, and every day until this subject is also addressed. . Each batch has been small and we are seeing a combination of old batches and new in the results online.

Meanwhile, people are helping support the project along with all of you which we are grateful for!

http://new55.net

Thanks for the update and the answer as to why my packets are exploding in the holder. I'm glad you're making progress. I guess I should just sell my remaining film to someone at a lower altitude that may be able to use it. It's a waste up here at 7000 ft.

[Alan9940]

Hello Bob,

Thank you for the followup! I know the New55 team is very busy resolving issues, has accomplished a LOT since the Kickstarter days, and all remain dedicated to the project. I have applauded this effort and have supported the project through my Kickstarter pledge and subsequent purchases of film. I didn't mean to be critical with anything I've posted here; rather, I was simply relaying my findings to date as honestly as I could. However, the bottom line for me is that I'm retired and cannot continue to buy film that just doesn't provide usable negatives. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I truly hope that New55 becomes a roaring success and I will continue to occasionally buy your product to see if it finally "gels" for me someday.

Kind regards,
Alan

[EdSawyer]

it's nice to hear progress is still being made!

[Fred L]

thanks for the fresh info Bob. Quick question about the solarisation, does this mean the negative is less prone or won't solarize if we don't shield it right away ? That would be a most welcome development <rimshot> ;)

[Andrew O'Neill]

And they're offering Atomic-X, in 4x5 sheets for our regular film holders! http://shop.new55.net/collections/frontpage/products/atomic-x-iso-100-4x5-panchromatic-sheet-film?variant=11257036739

[peter schrager]

So what is this atomic x film??
And why would I want use it

[Andrew O'Neill]

To support new55. Pretty good price for a box of 4x5.

[vdonovan2000]

So what is this atomic x film??
And why would I want use it

I like it, I find it has a tonality similar to Plus-X. Maybe it's supposed to be like Panatomic X? I never used Panatomic X in sheet film, so I can't compare it, but I sure loved it as a roll film. Anyway, Atomic X is nice film.

[peter schrager]

So atomic x is panotomic x
I highly doubt it...I also highly doubt that it is a brand new emulsion. ..bergger...has been playing these games for years
As they claimed the bpf 200 was xx film. . It was all Forte film
I believe the new 55 team is honestly trying to make this happen. ..but no one made any new emulsions for them to sell
And there is any number of wonderful 100 speed emulsions available

[vdonovan2000]

So atomic x is panotomic x
I highly doubt it...I also highly doubt that it is a brand new emulsion. ..bergger...has been playing these games for years
As they claimed the bpf 200 was xx film. . It was all Forte film
I believe the new 55 team is honestly trying to make this happen. ..but no one made any new emulsions for them to sell
And there is any number of wonderful 100 speed emulsions available

No one is saying that it is Panatomic-X, and yes there are other good ISO 100 films to shoot. I'm a fan of Ilford FP4, and a fan of Ilford Harman as a company. I've been shooting Atomic-X because it comes as a ready load, which has been great for travel and impromptu shoots. Having shot about a dozen sheets of it, I find I like the tonality so much that I'm looking forward to having regular sheets that I can shoot in conventional holders. I also like the idea of supporting the New55 project, but I'll continue to purchase Ilford products as well.

[peter schrager]

Why don't you post some examples for us.. and don't be defensive I'm looking for a fight
We're all here together...I was just curious where a new emulsion came from

[peter schrager]

Oops..NOT LOOKING FOR A FIGHT!!

[BobCrowley]

Here's an example processed as an instant film. We - New55 - definitely DID source our own film. None of the emulsions are "new" but they sure to vary. We have studied SO-139 which is what Polaroid used for T55 - Pan-X on a thin base (and the wrong size). What we have is very close. http://new55project.blogspot.com/2015/11/its-easy-fun-with-new55-pn-and-tip-from.html

[BobCrowley]

142684 Shot about two hours ago

[Rolfe Tessem]

142684 Shot about two hours ago

Bob,

Is that Atomic-X or New55?

Rolfe

[BobCrowley]

Bob,

Is that Atomic-X or New55?

Rolfe

Both. This is the exact same sheet film we also sell as Atomic-X, processed as an instant film we make called New55 PN.

I just shot this today and this is a scan of the instant negative.

The sheet film (just the sheets) is given our trade name Atomic-X and can be used in your film holders and processed with your favorite developer or with R5 Monobath if you like.

1SHOT is again this same film, put into a ready-loaded envelope that eliminates the need for hand loading film holders. All can be seen at http://new55.net.

There is also a lengthy blog with hundreds of posts about the project at http://new55project.blogspot.com

The development of the industrial capacity (plant, technology, equipment etc) was crowdfunded in 2014 after an R&D effort led by me at Soundwave Research in Massachusetts. New55 is a new, small company aiming to make large format photography more accessible and fun to a new audience of artists and photographers who are just discovering the fun of real photography, and for those who already know this.

[vdonovan2000]

142686
Camera: Shen Hao 4x5
Lens: Fujinon 210 W
Film: New55's Atomic X (ready load)
Developer: Xtol 1:1

[Paul Cunningham]

New55 is a new, small company aiming to make large format photography more accessible and fun to a new audience of artists and photographers who are just discovering the fun of real photography, and for those who already know this.

Bob, is this your new mission statement? Targeting new users as your primary market and not professionals?
Respectfully,
Paul

[EdSawyer]

It's really not a pro caliber product yet. Hopefully someday it will be.

[Paul Cunningham]

It's a question of intention, really.

[BobCrowley]

Bob, is this your new mission statement? Targeting new users as your primary market and not professionals?
Respectfully,
Paul

People who are new to analog photography have been responsible for about half the support, and the proportion has grown. The statement also includes "those who already know this" which I assume would include you, Paul.

[BobCrowley]

It's really not a pro caliber product yet. Hopefully someday it will be.

The quality exceeds where we started, and the print and negative match, which is important to me. I get consistent results and great, super sharp negatives. In my view the quality approaches T55 and exceeds it in the equivalent exposure test. The negatives are equally good in my view. Another improvement is that it is now a standard size and weight negative, unlike T55 where the positive print and negative were different. Here is my phone shot of the positive print (wet) that accompanies the scanned negative here elsewhere on the thread. What is your opinion of the importance of having equal "speed" positive and negative for our purposes? 142704

[Andrew O'Neill]

I think it's fantastic and it makes me wonder why Polaroid could never accomplish equal speed for both, considering the number of years T55 was around. With them, it was one or the other. Now we can have both. Can't wait to get mine...

[BobCrowley]

I think it's fantastic and it makes me wonder why Polaroid could never accomplish equal speed for both, considering the number of years T55 was around. With them, it was one or the other. Now we can have both. Can't wait to get mine...
T55 and 665 used a very different reagent formula with a reducing developer and a combination of silver halide solvents, plus a blend of two pH boosters. The developing mix was hydroquinone and sodium sulfite and sodium thiosulfate. In our many monobath experiments we found this would produce a good negative but not the best precursor for good blacks especially not with the old coater type receiver they used. The formula we use was not designed for optimal negative development, but instead for deep blacks using silver lean emulsions. The agent used is both a developer and a solvent, which is a bit unusual. Using that formula allows us to aggressively develop the negative (in some cases overboard, resulting in fogging and post peel light sensitivity) which I think Polaroid would have considered problematic. But the T55 workflow still required dunking negatives after peeling, and washing them, so we took the course of using fixer (easier to obtain) and using it to immediately terminate the development. Ilford rapid fixer is good at that as it has a very low pH and curdles the remaining skin of reagent which polymerizes into a sheet on the negative that is floated off. So with a small change to the workflow we can achieve this balance. It is not without its own things that need to be considered from a manufacturing and use standpoint, including batch to batch emulsion changes, processing temperature sensitivity, larger varying sensitivity to post-peel light strike, and some others. Skill has been and still is a factor. Yesterday's results underlined to me the need to emphasize the use of the correct fixer and concentration, and the desirability of face down immersion of the negative immediately upon peeling, which is easy to do.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thanks for the explanation!

[Kodachrome25]

As I wait patiently for my Kickstarter reward, I read this on another forum on a topic about great deals on things in 2015:

"A free box of New55 4X5 Instant film (plus negative). Normally costs $85.00 USD. For some reason, the company CEO gifted me a box."

In all seriousness, if I ever get this film, I am giving it to a friend. I know what the excuses are for selling the product as you go in order to be able to satisfy those who funded you....but wow man, this really has not gone well overall.

Not impressed.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Mine was shipped. I hope it arrives safely. Hopefully Customs won't zap the crap out of it, or decide to open up the film packs!

[DennisD]

In all seriousness, if I ever get this film, I am giving it to a friend. I know what the excuses are for selling the product as you go in order to be able to satisfy those who funded you....but wow man, this really has not gone well overall.

Not impressed.

Your frustration for the wait is understandable. While you may not be "impressed", think of the effort and devotion needed to make New55 a reality. IMHO this really is a "labor of love" on the part of Mr. Crowley, Hiser and staff - cheered on by the LF community. The fact that film is being sold to raise funds also serves as a test of market viability and demand for the producer.

It's amazing the project has come this far and is now delivering. While the product may not perfect, it is real - The real hope is that New55 will have an ongoing future in the midst of a shrinking (or limited) fan base of film users. If New55 receives continued support, it will hopefully survive - and improve.

I'm impressed the project has come this far, considering the difficulties, and hope it will advance much further.
Thanks to those who are working hard to make it possible.

[Oren Grad]

I've deleted some cranky posts and responses.

Substantive, non-inflammatory posts about new developments in this project are welcome. Please refrain from personal attacks and from continual rehashing of arguments about project delays.

[vdonovan2000]

Your frustration for the wait is understandable. While you may not be "impressed", think of the effort and devotion needed to make New55 a reality. IMHO this really is a "labor of love" on the part of Mr. Crowley, Hiser and staff - cheered on by the LF community. The fact that film is being sold to raise funds also serves as a test of market viability and demand for the producer.

It's amazing the project has come this far and is now delivering. While the product may not perfect, it is real - The real hope is that New55 will have an ongoing future in the midst of a shrinking (or limited) fan base of film users. If New55 receives continued support, it will hopefully survive - and improve.

I'm impressed the project has come this far, considering the difficulties, and hope it will advance much further.
Thanks to those who are working hard to make it possible.

+1 on that. Well said.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Mine was cranky?? Just injecting some humour... jeesh.

[Oren Grad]

Mine was cranky?? Just injecting some humour... jeesh.

No, it just made no sense out of context after the post it responded to was deleted. Sorry 'bout that - tangled messes are... messy to clean up. < sigh >

[Oren Grad]

Folks seem to be unable at this point to do much beyond arguing about the management of this project, so I'm going to close this thread. We may reopen it, or tack on individual new posts, if substantive news about the project emerges.