New 55 1Shot ready loads

[esearing]

New55 film offered 1shot ready loads but already sold out. These can be used in Polaroid 545 holders but are processed manually with your favorite chemistry.
A bit expensive but they are using it for a fund raiser.

http://shop.new55.net

[Sal Santamaura]

The offered product is referred to as "Readyloads." However, New55 information indicates it must be exposed in a 545 holder. That suggests the film is configured similarly to New55 packets of instant film, i.e. like the original Polaroid instant sheet films. If so, perforations connect the negative and must be ripped to separate it. This would not be a standard-size 4x5 negative and would need a special enlarger negative carrier. Also, 545 holders are the only ones into which it will fit. Fuji QuickLoad and Kodak ReadyLoad holders will not accept Polaroid-configured packets, although QuickLoad and ReadyLoad packets would work in 545 holders, albeit with worse performance than in their dedicated holders.

A major drawback: The 545 holder does not position packets with any precision. There are light leaf springs at its edges that loosely press toward the lens, but significant curving of the film can and does occur. This isn't a pressure plate system such as was employed by the Kodak and Fuji holders. Unless shooting at f/22 or smaller apertures, don't expect sharpness even close to what is achievable with a standard sheet film holder or ReadyLoad packets in a late-production ReadyLoad holder, i.e. the ones where all design bugs were worked out and additional internal clearance was added so packet envelopes no longer pushed film away from the lens at the end where they were inserted.

[Drew Wiley]

Sal, I got far better film flatness from modified 545 holders with both Fuji Quickloads and Kodak Readyloads than any generation of their dedicated holders. And
believe me, I tested these things. There is some variation in the wavy springs in 545 holders, so not all are equally ideal. And for these basic sleeves the internal roller apparatus was completely redundant extra weight, so could be removed provided any screw holes were sealed with black silicone to prevent light leaks. I'll probably shoot the last of my sleeves this summer using the reconfigured 545 holder. The pressure plates in dedicated holder terribly curved the film toward the insertion edge. I tried to fix that, but at a certain point the device just gets too tight to work. And these didn't have the durability of the 545. I check flatness not only with field shots, but via film reflections of something square, like an overhead fluorescent light bank. Any uneveness is instantly apparent from waviness in the linear elements like the tubes themselves. But I also have machinist's precision tools to check such things. The early Polaroid packs of Fuji 50
weren't quite as accurate, but that's because of sleeve thickness issues. Mostly an arcane discussion now. But if someone is still interested, 545 holders have
gotten so cheap that one could try several of them for which happens to be best. Most have probably already been thrown out. Now on to plan B: testing which
of my Mido holders are more prone to corner light leaks, and which aren't.

[Sal Santamaura]

Sal, I got far better film flatness from modified 545 holders with both Fuji Quickloads and Kodak Readyloads than any generation of their dedicated holders. And believe me, I tested these things...Your experience is opposite of mine. I tested too, using the same methods as you, but only two 545 samples (over time, a second one when the slightly lighter version was introduced), and not modified, since I used them for instant as well as E-6 packet films.


...The pressure plates in dedicated holder terribly curved the film toward the insertion edge. I tried to fix that, but at a certain point the device just gets too tight to work...

The only dedicated holder I used which didn't exhibit that defect was the final generation ReadyLoad version. It seemed to incorporate sufficient internal clearance at the insertion end to avoid deflecting packets. That holder functioned equally well for me with QuickLoad and ReadyLoad packets.

In any case, today I'm exclusively shooting Delta 100 in 4x5. None of the conventional-grain films satisfy my criteria for sharpness and granularity with such a small negative, so whichever of them HARMAN is selling to New55 for use in its instant product (and stand alone in these fundraising packets), holds no interest for me. The sharpest, most consistent 4x5 results I've achieved were in Toyo holders. I have 18 earlier, non-reeking samples of those, so, given my low-volume, day-hiking only shooting habits, packet systems are neither attractive nor particularly advantageous.


Now on to plan B: testing which of my Mido holders are more prone to corner light leaks, and which aren't.My first-version Mido flexible packet holders sit unused in their original box. I never was never consistently able to load them and, since I don't backpack, have no burning desire to try again. The Toyos are fine. :)


...The early Polaroid packs of Fuji 50...In my opinion, Fujichrome 50 (RFP) was the finest transparency film ever made for large format. It was Velveeta's predecessor, from a time before Fuji bowed to results of their opinion trials and the public's preference for exaggerated cartoon colors. Saturation felt just right to me, only slightly higher than literal. It wasn't sharp or grain-free enough to hold up in small formats, but adequate for 4x5 and larger.

[esearing]

buzz kill! That was half the fun of shooting type 55 and other polaroid products, it was imprecise and had weird blurs, odd edges, could be manipulated, and usually had uneven development. I personally am excited to see new films still coming out. If only the perfection will do for you, what will you shoot with when that film is no longer available?

[Sal Santamaura]

...That was half the fun of shooting type 55 and other polaroid products, it was imprecise and had weird blurs, odd edges, could be manipulated, and usually had uneven development...To each his own. Enjoy! Those "advantages" never were and aren't now for me. One of the things that made Type 55 a pain was its propensity, especially in later years when Polaroid's manufacturing equipment became rather worn, to exhibit such defects. Exposing backup sheets became even more of a requirement than it is now with a second-tier quality film like Foma. And I always considered printing the perforations and uneven edges of Type 55 negatives to be absurd affectations. This is a perfect example of why "art" is a useless term. It refers to anything and at the same time nothing. No matter what object/work, the bottom line is either "I like it" or "I don't like it" for each individual observer.


...If only the perfection will do for you, what will you shoot with when that film is no longer available?In color, I never really enjoyed anything other than Kodachrome 25 projected slides, mostly as documentary records of travel and events. Large format E-6 was mainly for publication. When publishers begged me to stop sending 4x5 transparencies, since they no longer wanted to deal with the time and expense of having them scanned, I "went digital." That's all I currently use when submitting images for offset printing as well as for snapshots.

In black and white, I think HARMAN will probably keep making Delta 100 long enough to cover my remaining ambulatory years. :) If not, there's always long-term cold storage. Alternatively, since I really like contact prints, any conventional-grain film in formats larger than 4x5 will do fine.

[Oren Grad]

None of the conventional-grain films satisfy my criteria for sharpness and granularity with such a small negative, so whichever of them HARMAN is selling to New55 for use in its instant product...

I doubt it's Harman. From Bob Crowley's recent post on the latest coating crisis:

New55 FILM's supply chain is shaping up, but not without some glitches and one serious change that may be occurring at the sheet film factory: Last week someone at the factory expressed doubts about continued production, which alarms us. An interruption could adversely impact the price going forward, though for now we have some 25,000 sheets on hand, safe in cold storage and ready for final assembly. We cannot survive another loss like Efke when it went out of business. I suppose existential threats exist in any industry, but ours is more sensitive since we know of only six places on Earth where 4x5 sheet film is produced!

http://new55project.blogspot.com/2015/04/kickstarter-update-34-this-could-be-our.html

[Sal Santamaura]

I doubt it's Harman...Thanks for that correction. If not HARMAN, it's unlikely to be Kodak. Which leaves only Fuji (an even more remote possibility) or lower-tier quality manufacturers. The latter should make esearing happy. :)

[Renato Tonelli]

Foma.

Discuss amongst yourselves...:)

[StoneNYC]

Your experience is opposite of mine. I tested too, using the same methods as you, but only two 545 samples (over time, a second one when the slightly lighter version was introduced), and not modified, since I used them for instant as well as E-6 packet films.



The only dedicated holder I used which didn't exhibit that defect was the final generation ReadyLoad version. It seemed to incorporate sufficient internal clearance at the insertion end to avoid deflecting packets. That holder functioned equally well for me with QuickLoad and ReadyLoad packets.

In any case, today I'm exclusively shooting Delta 100 in 4x5. None of the conventional-grain films satisfy my criteria for sharpness and granularity with such a small negative, so whichever of them HARMAN is selling to New55 for use in its instant product (and stand alone in these fundraising packets), holds no interest for me. The sharpest, most consistent 4x5 results I've achieved were in Toyo holders. I have 18 earlier, non-reeking samples of those, so, given my low-volume, day-hiking only shooting habits, packet systems are neither attractive nor particularly advantageous.

My first-version Mido flexible packet holders sit unused in their original box. I never was never consistently able to load them and, since I don't backpack, have no burning desire to try again. The Toyos are fine. :)

In my opinion, Fujichrome 50 (RFP) was the finest transparency film ever made for large format. It was Velveeta's predecessor, from a time before Fuji bowed to results of their opinion trials and the public's preference for exaggerated cartoon colors. Saturation felt just right to me, only slightly higher than literal. It wasn't sharp or grain-free enough to hold up in small formats, but adequate for 4x5 and larger.

I agree that often my results contradict what Drews are, so I'll take your word for it.

As for the fujichrome 50, have you tried Provia100f? It really is much less extreme than Velvia50 is, it's still saturated not much less so. I'm sure you have, but just saying it's pretty nice (although I prefer Velvia 50's crazy colors which is why I'm importing it now to the U.S. In 4x5 and 8x10).

Speaking of, have any 8x10 Mido holders? ;)

As for the film, let's not forget Rollie as a possible source of film.

It is disturbing that one of the 5-6 sheet film makers is telling NEW55 that they might be closing down soon, and I'm wondering which, I REALY hope it's not Rollie, I need their IR400 to stick around for a long while...

Anyone feel free to PM me with secret Intel on this as I would like to "stock up" if it's anyone I use....or plan to use this summer (like tons of FOMA paper).

[Steve Goldstein]

According to a recent press release I saw from New55 the film is made by the Shenbei factory in China.

[StoneNYC]

According to a recent press release I saw from New55 the film is made by the Shenbei factory in China.

Who else do they produce for?

[Andrew O'Neill]

It's always a good idea to stock up on any IR film... I bought a few boxes of Rollei IR, just in case.

[Steve Goldstein]

Who else do they produce for?

The press release says the manufacture "X-ray, photographic, and roll films for industrial and consumer markets". That's it, no brand names.

[Sal Santamaura]

...As for the fujichrome 50, have you tried Provia100f?...I tried all iterations of Provia as well as other Fuji and Kodak large format transparency films. The closest thing to RFP was original Astia. Next best was the final version of Astia. The bronze medal went to E100G. Fortunately, I neither need nor want any of them today. :)


...have any 8x10 Mido holders?...No, I only ever tried the original, flexible 4x5 Mido holders. While the later, clamshell versions might be useful, especially in 8x10, after dealing with Shin's first product I was not tempted. In any case, my 8x10 shooting style is not prolific, so a dozen Fidelity holders serve adequately.

[Drew Wiley]

My priority in color sheet film was polyester base. Acetate isn't dimensionally stable, so won't register reliably when doing masking, separations, etc. Fortunately, two superb E6 films were marketed in polyester: E100G and Astia 100F. The latter doubled as the finest duping film ever. The bad news is that now we've lost most of our E6 films as well as Cibachrome. The earlier renditions of Provia were more versatile to me than the present version, but none were on a stable sheet base. Kodachrome? Something we can all cry about losing forever. But if it still hypothetically existed in sheets, I'm sure we'd all be really crying about the price. I've moved on to color neg, which is expensive enough in 8X10. Hope this neo-Readyload whatever concept works out well enough to get quantity up, price down. But I'm pretty fussy about black and white emulsions too. But since I do happen to have a 545 holder with very good film flatness, one more reason to keep it. Like I already hinted, I modified it substantially, and it has worked superbly for me with both Quickloads and Readyloads.

[europanorama]

My priority in color sheet film was polyester base. Acetate isn't dimensionally stable, so won't register reliably when doing masking, separations, etc. Fortunately, two superb E6 films were marketed in polyester: E100G and Astia 100F. The latter doubled as the finest duping film ever. The bad news is that now we've lost most of our E6 films as well as Cibachrome. The earlier renditions of Provia were more versatile to me than the present version, but none were on a stable sheet base. Kodachrome? Something we can all cry about losing forever. But if it still hypothetically existed in sheets, I'm sure we'd all be really crying about the price. I've moved on to color neg, which is expensive enough in 8X10. Hope this neo-Readyload whatever concept works out well enough to get quantity up, price down. But I'm pretty fussy about black and white emulsions too. But since I do happen to have a 545 holder with very good film flatness, one more reason to keep it. Like I already hinted, I modified it substantially, and it has worked superbly for me with both Quickloads and Readyloads.
It shouldnt be so difficult to produce again 4x5-vaccum-system. Schneider had one.
i am only surprised were the holes on Mamiya RB67/67/70 vaccum-back are positioned. They certainly knew why.
Have a special mamiya press vaccum back for 220 but its a wrong construction with few and too big holes. Never tested.

[Drew Wiley]

Two different issues here. Yes, polyester tends to be stiffer than acetate, depending on thickness. Roll film is thin, sheets typically are not. But that is not what I
was referring to; but rather, dimensional stability over time, for the sake of masking registration etc. Acetate shrinks, beginning fairly soon and taking a decade
or more to partially stabilize, so it's a poor choice for anything requiring repeatable alignment.