Polaroid 8x10 w/81-05 holder

[bvy]

Curious if anyone is using the 81-05 holder with Impossible 8x10 film. This would be as opposed to the 81-06 holder with 81-09 loading tray, which is supposed to be easier to use. I've been all over YouTube and can't find a video of anyone using the 81-05 holder. A video would be great if someone can point me to one. As far as user experiences, I've found a few anecdotal things, but nothing conclusive. I would really like to hear from someone who uses it regularly and can impart some advice. My hardware (holder and processor) appear to be in very good shape. I haven't ordered film yet, but at $20 a pop, it doesn't lend itself to much practice. So I'm doing as much research as I can up front.

Is the main problem with the 81-05 holder around inserting the positive sheet? I've also read that it holds the film too tightly. Thoughts or advice?

Thanks.

[koh303]

It takes some practice, but works just fine with the 81-05, i have been using it for a long time, with the impossible material and before that with the polaroid stuff.

The polaroid material was usually really awful, and even when it worked it did not really work. The IP stuff is slightly better, with better tolerances with the holders.

Using the newer style holder and the tray is easier, but, considering the fact they are so hard to find, and so expensive when they do come up for sale, the 81-05 is more then fine.

Expect to get 3-4 wasted shots, but once you get the hand of it, you are all set.

[pierre506]

I also ruined 3 IP films with 81-05 holder, then stopped.

Frustrating~

[bvy]

Pierre: Can you be specific about the problems you've had? What went wrong exactly?

[adelorenzo]

I had the 81-05 holder and never had any problems with Impossible film. My unit came with the original Polaroid instructions which were quite simple to follow, I guess I should have scanned them as a quick google search doesn't show that they are online anywhere.

[koh303]

Here you go:
http://www.catlabs.info/resources

[vdonovan]

I've shot about 5 boxes of 8x10 IP through the 81-05. It does take a few shots to get the hang of sliding the receiver (positive) sheet into the holder slot, but once I did it a few times it was no problem. The Impossible Project receiver sheet is thinner than the Polaroid sheets were, so it tends to buckle a little when you slide it into the holder, but, like I said, after you get the hang of it.

[Tracy Storer]

It takes some practice, but works just fine with the 81-05, i have been using it for a long time, with the impossible material and before that with the polaroid stuff.

The polaroid material was usually really awful, and even when it worked it did not really work. The IP stuff is slightly better, with better tolerances with the holders.

Using the newer style holder and the tray is easier, but, considering the fact they are so hard to find, and so expensive when they do come up for sale, the 81-05 is more then fine.

Expect to get 3-4 wasted shots, but once you get the hand of it, you are all set.

Um, back when Polaroid was actually making 8x10 film and when it could be had fresh, it was leaps and bounds better than ANYTHING IP is offering now.
Sorry to contradict you, but 809, 803, and 804 were AMAZING.(again, I'm talking about in-date Polaroid film, which of course has not been available for some time.)
Sorry I haven't tried the 81-05 with IP film, but Vince says he has had success, and he knows what he is about.

[bvy]

Well, I'm happy for the slightly more encouraging feedback that makes me think the 81-05 holder isn't a lost cause entirely.

In terms of "wasting shots" (as two people have mentioned) does this happen because of some problem around getting the positive inserted properly? It seems like once it's in, it's in. Or is there something else that can go wrong with these holders?

[koh303]

Many things can go wrong with such a large sheet and a processor. They do not get sucked in right, or the crimp, or the pod is not spread right, or, it just does not work...

RE polaroid material - Ever since fuji material became available, it was apparent to anyone who used this stuff just how bad polaroid material really was. Colors were never right, contrast was off, exposure - dont ask, and sharpness was an issue with most color films. All of the above was and is close to perfection with the Fuji color material, and not to mention the BW material they sadly no longer make. Polaroid BW was not as awful as the color, and in some cases was not bad at all (IE T55), but oh, so much work to be able to use it...

That said, the IP stuff is pretty bad on its own accord, without having to need to compare it to polatoid stuff - but - as it is the only 8X10 instant film, and soon the only instant film to me made, who are we to complain...

[Jakelovesphoto]

[QUOTE=koh303;Ever since fuji material became available, it was apparent to anyone who used this stuff just how bad polaroid material really was. Colors were never right, contrast was off, exposure - dont ask, and sharpness was an issue with most color films. All of the above was and is close to perfection with the Fuji color material, and not to mention the BW material they sadly no longer make. Polaroid BW was not as awful as the color, and in some cases was not bad at all (IE T55), but oh, so much work to be able to use[/QUOTE]

It pains me to see you bash Old Pol' but unfortunately I can't help but agree. I think Polaroid never stayed one one product long enough to perfect it. It was always the next thing, big thing, new thing.

[bvy]

Many things can go wrong with such a large sheet and a processor. They do not get sucked in right, or the crimp, or the pod is not spread right, or, it just does not work...

I think that's true in general, but I meant relative to the 81-05 holder. What goes wrong so easily with the 81-05 holder such that people are losing shots/wasting film? Is it related to the problem of inserting the positive sheet? It is alignment?

Thanks for the attachment by the way. Very helpful.

[koh303]

I think that's true in general, but I meant relative to the 81-05 holder. What goes wrong so easily with the 81-05 holder such that people are losing shots/wasting film? Is it related to the problem of inserting the positive sheet? It is alignment?

Thanks for the attachment by the way. Very helpful.

As i said in the post you quoted:
"They do not get sucked in right, or they crimp, or the pod is not spread right, or, it just does not work..." or all of the above.
All of these are true with the newer holder+tray BTW.

[bvy]

What problem did the newer holder and tray solve, then?

[koh303]

What problem did the newer holder and tray solve, then?

The problem of being able to charge more money for something already available for less. The american dream.

[pierre506]

Pierre: Can you be specific about the problems you've had? What went wrong exactly?
The 1st one was the processor could not pull out the slide. I try to rescue it again and again, but finally failed. I checked and found the pod was a little bit of sloping.
The 2nd one was the processor pulled out the positive paper without the negative. It must be my fault.
The 3rd one sounds good after the pulling out noise. I opened the cover and found that the slide had been rolling too much and into the roller again. The result was I only got a half image.
I did not know why and stopped.

[vdonovan]

What problem did the newer holder and tray solve, then?
The 81-05 requires you to slide the positive receiver sheet into a somewhat narrow slot in the film holder. It's a little awkward and the receiver sheet can buckle. The newer tray and holder simplified putting the receiver sheet and negative into the processor. I don't know if it works any better, I've never had any trouble with either.

[bvy]

Thank you all. This is good information to be armed with before going at it alone. I think the next thing is to try it. My 8x10 is currently "in the shop" for repairs. I'll provide an update once it gets back to me and I have some film to work with (I might first try to get some expired Polaroid 8x10 film).

[Mike D]

Thank you all. This is good information to be armed with before going at it alone. I think the next thing is to try it. My 8x10 is currently "in the shop" for repairs. I'll provide an update once it gets back to me and I have some film to work with (I might first try to get some expired Polaroid 8x10 film).

It pains me to see some of the preceding comments about Polaroid film.

I wouldn't bother with outdated material at this point unless it is free. The reagents have very likely breached the pods and have dried up. Even if luck is on your side, the hardening that occurs with any film over time will impact the final image.

Impossible has many guides online, including the original 8X10 Processor User Guide from Polaroid.
https://www.the-impossible-project.com/8x10/

I'm with Tracy on the opinion of the Polaroid peel apart film while it was manufactured. Fuji was nice film, though they never had an 8X10 product as I recall, 4X5 being the largest format. Polaroid made that film for years, contrary to what some said. It was well supported by an 800 number that would immediately help working photographers with any solution, including overnight replacement of manufacturing issues. I know that for a fact. I worked that number for a few years. Honestly though, most calls were about helping correct user errors.

As to consistency, every film has batch variances, including processed film. I've worked pro e-6 lines and saw it in densitometry tests. Polaroid had established tolerances like any other film. That's why pros always bought in bulk.

As to quality of image, I remember a program I worked on that was trying to position Polaroid Pro 100 as a hybrid solution to the expensive digital cameras/backs of the time. I tested both ER and Pro 100 under studio conditions, and with proper lighting for the contrast and filtering for metamerism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamerism_(color)) and batch variances, both gave exceeding nice results for reproduction purposes. As I traveled across the country showing studio shooting of the material, I was approached by many a photographer who claimed I was using special film and not the off the shelf material I was actually using. Their problem wasn't with the film, it was with their technique.

Here's the old film in action. It's hardly the terrible stuff I see being mentioned here, even with what I'm doing to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqfxEJ85Ez4

So yes, I obviously worked for Polaroid. But I went there after using the materials as a working photographer for many years. We depended on the Polaroid test to preconceive what the processed film would give us and that's what we used for client sign-off before a shoot was closed.

I hope you have great results with the new Impossible film.

[koh303]

Their problem wasn't with the film, it was with their technique.
The ultimate answer. If their technique was so poor it produced bad results from a product, that just means the product was not good enough or designed well enough to prevent this from ever being an issue (see - Fuji instant films).


Here's the old film in action. It's hardly the terrible stuff I see being mentioned here, even with what I'm doing to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqfxEJ85Ez4
That's a totally awesome (in a totally 90's goofy way), but i thought water boils at 100 degrees?

[Tracy Storer]

The ultimate answer. If their technique was so poor it produced bad results from a product, that just means the product was not good enough or designed well enough to prevent this from ever being an issue (see - Fuji instant films).
That's a totally awesome (in a totally 90's goofy way), but i thought water boils at 100 degrees?

Water does boil at 100 degrees, Celsius. Or 212 F. Mike may not have said in the video, but he meant Farenheit.

So if I drive my car at 125MPH and wrap it around a tree, it's the car manufacturers fault?
Or how about if I run out of gas? They should have made a self filling car?
Got a splinter? Should have bought splinter-free wood!
Ignoring (or learning and respecting) tool and material characteristics are the responsibility of the user. I generally suggest learning and respecting.

[koh303]

If you cannot figure out which pedal does what, because your car is complicated to use, it is not your fault even if you did not read the manual. Some things are intuitive. Polaroid products for the most part are not, and nothing they ever did addressed this, so much so that they had to have an 800 line for people to call and ask how to do things, at an age long before this one, which is often lamented as an age of pure silliness...

[Mike D]

The ultimate answer. If their technique was so poor it produced bad results from a product, that just means the product was not good enough or designed well enough to prevent this from ever being an issue (see - Fuji instant films).
It's only an ultimate answer if you grab one section of what I wrote. I was recalling a specific story, not an overall statement. If you noticed, my recollection of the 800 hotline specifically mentioned the overnight of replacement film due to defects.

As to your design point, it is inherent in all professional photographic chemical processes. Fuji film was nice stuff, as I said. They learned and "borrowed" from more than one Polaroid patent from what I heard internally. All professional films, instant or conventional, require a certain amount of knowledge to use well, for that is the difference between consumer and pro lines. For someone who deals in processing equipment, I'm surprised you have taken this position. Processing is the same. It requires a set of knowledge to do well.

Look, my point here was not to argue against your opinion, for we are all entitled to have one. It was to point out from firsthand experience how good the film was. It was used by every working pro on the commercial side of photography. It was never intended to replace conventionally processed film at the time. Not even Fuji marketed their film as a replacement. Since Fuji didn't make 8X10, pros whom needed consistency across film formats didn't mix manufacturers.

However, excellent results that rivaled conventional film were obtainable in the hands of someone who knew how exposure, temperature, lighting, manufacturing variances, and development affects the final image. Which was my point when bringing up the story of photographers feeling I was using special Polacolor film when I wasn't. One only has to look at the longevity and history of the Polaroid 20X24 as final art as an example of the film's capabilities in expert hands. Same stuff, just a different size.

Here's a little forgotten "secret" for you that only a select group of pros knew outside of Polaroid. Polaroid actually sold Fuji instant film under their name. Technical assistance calls came in for that product line too, btw, for no film is immune.


That's a totally awesome (in a totally 90's goofy way), but i thought water boils at 100 degrees?

LOL, as you might guess from the time that video was made for the US market, defining Celsius or Fahrenheit was never an issue. The guides I wrote that were used internationally did specify Fahrenheit as well as their Celsius equivalent. Now how about it, the film imaged fairly well in that video, wouldn't you agree?

[koh303]

Here's a little forgotten "secret" for you that only a select group of pros knew outside of Polaroid. Polaroid actually sold Fuji instant film under their name. Technical assistance calls came in for that product line too, btw, for no film is immune.

Funny that current "polaroid" is marketing Fuji Instax mini as polaroid today...

The pepper does look good in that photo, and i have fond memories of Bill burke's pola transfer classes, and fun times with Elsa dorfman with 20X24 (of which i have never seen a real proper color toned image, maybe the material was all old even way back then). That aside, when i worked in a commercial environment, 4X5 was the tool used, and every now and again polaroid material was handed by an assistant (because of better pricing or any other reason), and it was simply unusable. It was useless when trying to eyeball exposure predictions on any film stock, and because of high fail rate (both pack and single sheet), including massive streaking or just total failure, it usually went directly to the trash (after peeling apart all the sheets so that we could write it off).

I was just shocked in 1999-2000 when digital gear and printing just showed up, at how amazing the Fuji stuff was, compared to polaroid, compared to those benchmarked chromes (which i never understood why anyone used, other then to see how accurate the fuji material was), compared to anything. When i did work in 8X10, those processors where always a mystery as to weather or not it will produce an image that is usable. Something like starting a cold air head BMW, do i need choke? throttle? not an exact science.

Don't get me wrong, i think we are on the same page - the only thing is i just do not remember a time when polaroid made good material, perhaps it was before my time.

As for design - making gear more complicated to use in order to be able to call it "pro" and make a commercial distinction is a thing of the past. Anybody that has a camera is a photographer, and today, everybody has a camera. Some companies (Fuji not specifically included) have demonstrated that Pro gear does not mean "pro reading and concentration skill required gear", and good design is measured by how easy it is to get good results with no pre requisite knowledge.

Being able to pick up a piece of photographic equipment and producing amazing work increases ten fold when that gear is simple, intuitive and easy to use.
That is not to say that badly designed gear will not give good results, it only means it excludes a huge portion our customer base. In polaroids case, this was a non issue, as you said, it was the ONLY option for 8X10, so there was no real need to make it, well, anything. Good, bad, design, no design. No matter.

all the said, there was so much that could have been done with that material, as the video says, the creative possibilities were endless, at a time, when 4 minutes to separate an emulsion, was just a very short period of time. Today, that sounds like an eternity to wait for something to happen.... :)

[Fred L]

Maybe it's me but I never used Polaroid products to judge accurate exposures. I used it to assess lighting, sometimes composition etc.. Or I used if for transfers onto watercolour paper, something that Fuji instant can't do, afaik.

That Polaroid, as we knew it, is gone, esp T55, is a real shame as some wonderful work was done with it.

[Tracy Storer]

I think we have strayed far enough off topic to be in the realm of philosophy, we are certainly discussing differences of opinion. With respect to Omer of Catlabs, I just have to continue to disagree with you on this.

I worked with a lot of pros who used Polaroid pack, 4x5, and 8x10 as a matter of course, before Fuji was on the scene and after. I don't remember anybody having trouble handling the equipment, or having it work 99% of the time, except when you'd occasionally lose a metal tab inside your 545 or have to clean your rollers. (or accidentally pull the wrong tab at the wrong time=user error)
As far as color matching between chrome and Pola, forget it. Exposure, I'll say again, was always predictably ASA 80, as marked for Polacolor ER3 for me.
Streaks come from past-date or improperly stored material, period. By the time it's showing streaks (oxidation marks) the color is long shifted and sensitivity affected as well. I only bought US market material, never grey market for that reason.

I don't know why the people you worked with had so much trouble Omer, maybe they bought short dated or old material and you didn't know at the time, but your experience is so vastly different from mine I have to speak up. Peace.

[koh303]

I only bought US market material, never grey market for that reason.
As i was not in the US, that was not an option. All of my colleagues, in the many countries i worked in had the same sentiment about working in the studio (especially the German friends), all through the 90's and 2000's (as far as material was being made), though as time went by and fuji stuff was cheaper, more readily available and as noted before by far more reliable and useful, i did see less and less pola stuff. The last being an 8X10 shoot in 2005 in the US, and while all sheets worked, image quality was just awful.
Clearly, more often then not the material was not in prime shape even with well in date stuff, but thats not my (or anyone else's) fault as users, just bad material.

This final shoot, let me believe what i always thought was true, that this stuff was bad even when it was good.

Perhaps export was less of an important market for Polaroid, or the US market was more important, either way this is all in the past and long gone nonsense, which will not come back, and beating it over is a bit pointless. So i will just keep my feel and experiences with this, and just like you felt the need to chime in earlier.

[europanorama]

Fuji-Kodak-Polaroid

Kodak lost the patent-fight and sold their tech to Fuji. Thats why Fuji learnt from KODAK mostly since the Kodak-instant-color were more natural than Polaroids when standard-instant-cams were used.. I still have intact and quite natur flash-colors of Kodak PR-100-prints in my album from around 1977.
2. Impossible B+W versus outdated Polaroid 803(highspeed film?)
I saw at Catlabs 1/3 offers of outdated Pola 803, If hit rate is not 100% or more than 75% its waste of time and money to use outdated material. above all if one cannot carry PolaProcessor on location, let alone multiple backs for pinhole 8x10-photography. reminder: lightweigth 8x10 cam with 120mm= 3.5kgs
What is hit-rate of new Impossible 8x10 B+W? If trained are results consistant?
AND finally this:
Do the 655 films need coating? It seems after seeing fading despite good shielding.i still have one intact and working gel-roller.