Too much contrast in Polaroid 55 prints

[Mark McCarvill]

I've been experimenting with Polaroid type 55 and have yet to make anything close to a decent print, although I've been using the recommended ASA of 80-100 and processing for about 20 seconds at room temperature. When a gray card photographed as part of the scene looks about right, the highlights are completely blown out. When I then reduce the exposure, the shadows are pure black and the highlights aren't much better. I've tried pre-exposure to increase shadow detail but this hasn’t helped. Any suggestions? Thanks!

[Christian Olivet]

Polaroid 55 has lots of contrast. I would try to shoot flat to medium contrast scenes with it, otherwise it won't work. Polaroid 55 is almost like slide film in contrast.

[Gem Singer]

Hi Mark,

Suggestions:

If you are only interested in a Polaroid print, use Type 54 film.

If you insist on using Type 55 film and are only interested in obtaining a good print, rate it at ISO 50. Develope for about 20-25 sec. at 70 degrees. Coat the print. Throw the negative away.

Once you obtain a good print with Type 55, and find that you also want a printable negative, expose another sheet of film and give it one stop more exposure than you used for the good print. However, do not run it through the processing procedure. Take it home and process it carefully for one full minute at room temperature. Immediately place the negative in a sulphite solution. Be careful not to scratch it. Then, wash, dip it in wetting agent, and hang it to dry in a dust free area. Throw the print away.

[Jay Wolfe]

Also, remember that a positive Polaroid in like transparency material: It has a much more limited exposure range than negative material. If you're trying to photograph high contrast subjects you're going to have to give up texture at one end of the scale if not both.

If you're only photographing for the print, try Type 52. It will give beautiful images and it responds to development and exposure controls better than Type 55. There was an article in a recent issue of Black and White Photography (the Brit publication) a couple of months back that described this material and its use very well.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Are you referring to the actual Type 55 print or a print that you make in your darkroom from the negative? If you are using the negative to make prints, I've found that exposing at an EI of 20 works well. Seems like such a waste if you are using Type 55 for just the print. You should use Type 54 like Eugene suggested if that is the case.

[Mark McCarvill]

Thanks for the quick feedback. Much appreciated.

My goal is to make good negatives but I haven’t broken out the sulphite solution yet because I wanted to first make a decent print, which I haven’t been able to do. I shoot mostly medium to high contrast landscape scenes, which I understand is challenging but doable with type 55 film, especially with pre-exposure. There are some beautiful examples of this in the Ansel Adams book Polaroid Land Photography.

[Henry Ambrose]

Mark,

Type 55 won't make a good print and a good negative all at once. For a print should it be rated around 50 and for the negative at about 25. The negative is at least a full stop slower than the print.

One way to guess immediately that you've made a good negative is that the print is over exposed - to be sure, you need to clear the negative to see what you've done.

Depending on where you live and the season (its winter here) you may need to warm the film pack before exposure and during development. I usually hold mine against my body during developement. If its really cold out then warming the packet prior to exposure is a good idea so you don't start developing with cold chemicals. A little longer developing time won't hurt anything either.

[Michael J. Kravit]

Christian wrote:
"Polaroid 55 has lots of contrast. I would try to shoot flat to medium contrast scenes with it, otherwise it won't work. Polaroid 55 is almost like slide film in contrast."

Interesting, I have been shooting this film and making negatives from it for many years. I have never had a problem getting a good print nor have I found that it had "too" much contrast. I have also read that it has a limited contrast range. I think there are lots of urban myths floating around on the internet. This may be just one example.

Check out the work of Mark Klett or David Michael Kennedy www.davidmichaelkennedy.com to see some fine examples of Type 55 imagery.

[Ole Tjugen]

"When I then reduce the exposure, the shadows are pure black and the highlights aren't much better. "

Yes - the print is a POSITIVE. Reducing exposure makes it darker, increasing exposure makes it lighter. The negative is a negative, so increasing exposure makes it darker. To get the best density range on the negative, the positive sholud be severely overexposed - even more when the film is getting old (like mine).

If it's any comfort, I've wasted several sheets myself with exactly the same mistake.

[kthompson]

sounds more like the problem is contrast of the scene. where I work we use a ton of type 55 as a proofing material for chrome films shot in the studio or on location. we rarely actually save the negative, but rather use that to check fine focus & then toss it. 55 works well for proofing chrome films because it has about the same latitude. We base the exposure off the highlights and to view the shadows, we "candle"--backlight--the print. If you just looked at the shadows under normal lighting, they'd look all plugged up. It takes a little practice to know what it should look like, but in my experience, if you can get a good proof this way--you'll have the detail for chrome film and more than enough for b/w neg. When I do use the negative, I just add a stop.

[Mark McCarvill]

Success! Yesterday I made a good negative of a fairly contrasty scene, after metering for the highlights and pre-exposing to increase shadow detail. The print of this scene had great shadow detail but the highlights were overblown, obviously due to its narrower tonal range.

Thanks to the folks here for their comments and suggestions.

I'm curious whether other LF photographers use Polaroid 55 for landscape scenes. Great for big prints, but at 20 ASA do you find you spend a lot of time waiting for the wind to die down or whatever so you can get the shot? And is it worth it?