Atomic X Readyload film from New55

[vdonovan2000]

As most of you probably know, the New55 project (http://www.new55.net/) has released the 100 ISO 4x5 negative film that they will be using in their final product as a negative-only Readyload. They are doing this initially just as a fund raiser for New55, but if there is interest they will hopefully consider keeping it on as a regular product. Since it is a fund raiser at the moment, it is priced at a premium.

Anyway, I shot a few sheets, and rather than developing it in the New55 monobath, I used my favorite developer, Xtol, diluted 1:1. I used the same development time as on Kodak's data sheet for Plus-X. I'm very pleased with the result, a nice range of tones. The negative was a little thin for my taste. I had put the record grooves into zone IV, but on the negative they are just barely there. So this might be more of an ISO 50 film when developed in Xtol or other developer.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to using more of this film. I've never shot readyloads before and I have to say they are great to work with. No muss, no fuss!

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5349/17771557298_035ed8a7d8_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/t5pSQj)

[Deval]

Lovely

[Jac@stafford.net]

That would be a much welcomed product.

(Oh, and you picture is a great example of camera movements, DOF control.)

[Keith Tapscott.]

Where Readyload is mentioned, do you mean that it can be used with a Kodak Readyload film holder? If so, I would be interested.

[Sal Santamaura]

Where Readyload is mentioned, do you mean that it can be used with a Kodak Readyload film holder?...No. New55 information indicates its product 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.

[vdonovan2000]

Hi Sal, I think you are right that New55's Atomic X ready-load film will only work in Polaroid 545 and 545i holders. However, the film is not held by perforations, but by adhesive strips. The negative is the standard size and can ride in a standard enlarger negative carrier. I don't know what, if any, changes they will make for the New55 positive/negative version of this film.

I have no experience using the read-load film holders from Kodak and Fuji, so I have no opinion about the relative quality of these holders. It sounds like you've used them and know a lot about them.

[Sal Santamaura]

...the film is not held by perforations, but by adhesive strips. The negative is the standard size and can ride in a standard enlarger negative carrier...That's surprising. Did you have any issue with the film/leader/trailer separating if you pulled the envelope too hard when exposing? How difficult was removing the adhesive strip when processing? It seems like they'd have to strike a delicate balance between those two potential issues when selecting the strip's material and adhesive. Polaroid's perforated approach was very robust.


...I don't know what, if any, changes they will make for the New55 positive/negative version of this film...That will be interesting to follow. If they're planning to continue with standard film and adhesive strips, shelf life could be limited due to drying out of the adhesive.

[EdSawyer]

That is too bad about the inherent design flaw to the 545 holders (no pressure plate, etc. )

[Drew Wiley]

I must again reiterate that my experience does not duplicate Sal's. Maybe there were some so-so 545 holders out there, but the ones I tested distinctly held the film flatter than the dedicated sleeve holders by either Fuji and Kodak, and were much more durably made. The pressure plate system was highly flawed in concept because, to be able to fit the sleeve in, the insertion end of the plate had to be configured with a curve, which inevitably ended up out of focus. Since 545 holders
are dirt cheap these day, I recommend testing several of them. I did modify one which I still use with excellent results. Too bad my film sleeves are almost all
gone. I'm down to one box each of 160VS, E100G, and Acros.

[Sal Santamaura]

I must again reiterate that my experience does not duplicate Sal's. Maybe there were some so-so 545 holders out there, but the ones I tested distinctly held the film flatter than the dedicated sleeve holders by either Fuji and Kodak, and were much more durably made. The pressure plate system was highly flawed in concept because, to be able to fit the sleeve in, the insertion end of the plate had to be configured with a curve, which inevitably ended up out of focus...

So I'll reiterate that my comment referenced one specific ReadyLoad holder. Here's what my above post said:


...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.It took Kodak a long time, but the final iteration holder suffered from none of those deficiencies you describe. It even worked well with QuickLoad packets.


...Since 545 holders are dirt cheap these day, I recommend testing several of them. I did modify one which I still use with excellent results...I don't recall what modifications you made. Do others need to test, select and modify (how?) a 545 in order to achieve similar results? :)

[Drew Wiley]

As you might recall, the first "ordinary" film offering for the 545 system was marketed by Polaroid but with early Fuji 50 chrome film in it. This required compression of an adhesive sandwich via the integral rollers. After that, nobody's sleeve needed these rollers. Redundant. Just extra weight. Kodak had that double-sided bellyflop system, then the far more reliable single-sided sleeves followed. I inherited a few 545 holders and settle on just one that had the most
potential. And yes, I seriously modified it, but first did reflected light tests for film flatness. And yes, it is a lot better than the Kodak or Fuji holders in at least
all the variations I've seen or was aware of. Since these holders were expected to hold up for hundreds and hundreds of miles of mountain torture, I was pretty
damn fussy. I believe I've seen all the Kodak flavors of holder, but perhaps there was something I missed. When I gutted the 545 I used odds n' end of hi-techy
stuff like pure silicone sheet gasketing and glues left over from enlarger projects (not hardware store stuff by any means, but readily avail from aerospace suppliers or industrial suppliers like McMaster). In other word, high-performance components designed to endured decades of climate extremes. Probably use this system in a couple of months. ... after that, unlikely, unless someone does develop a realistic Quickload film redux. Still got my Mido holders and roll film
backs if I need to pack light. Not getting any younger.

[BobCrowley]

We've tested all extant holders of this type and found that film flatness is best when there is a backing sheet (we call the tongue) and side rail springs. This condition is met in the 545 series which exhibit very good flatness when used with such a system. The clever Kodak and Fujifilm holders with moving pressure plates are much lighter in weight but lack serviceability and access to the clip end which is needed occasionally in all of these holders, and they do not exhibit flatness within +/- 0.020" as we measure with the 545. To say the 545 lacks sufficient film flatness for correct focus is incorrect when these conditions are met. https://shop.new55.net/collections/frontpage/products/1shot?variant=1194818235