Polaroid Help

[dazedgonebye]

I have a graflex xlsw on the way. It includes a Polaroid 100 film back.
I’m a complete Polaroid idiot.
As near as I can tell, it takes series 100 and 669 series film. Is that right?
Those films seem to be 3.25” x 4.25” in size.
Now, I know this lens vignettes at 6x9cm. What will it be like, using larger film?

Any primers on Polaroid in general would be appreciated.

[Donald Qualls]

Correct, that back will use any 3x4 size Polaroid pack film -- all the versions that start with 6 except the 600 integral film (for the SX-70 derived 600 cameras): 662, 664, 667, 669 and 690 (and 665 if you can still find any -- it's been out of production for at least six months). If you like taking your chances, it'll also use the older 100 series films that you might find at Unsaleable.com, such as 108, 105, etc. The image area of that film is just under 3" x 4" (about 1/8" under, as I recall).

I don't know that camera's Polaroid setup specifically, but most cameras that put the Polaroid pack film in place of roll film or sheet film put the camera's standard image size on the larger Polaroid, so you'll get prints with a black unexposed area around the actual image. Complicating matter, that camera originally took 2x3 sheet film holders with a Graflok type back, so it probably requires some setback for the Polaroid holder to fit (unless the Polaroid replaces the entire Graflok setup); that might be accomplished with a negative diopter (as with the Holgaroid) that would more nearly fill the Polaroid print, or it might be done with a thick optical glass plate to stretch the light path (the plate adds about 1/3 of its thickness to the optical distance, so if you need to stretch the optical path by, say, 6 mm to reach a setback film plane, you'd use about an 18 mm thickness of flat glass -- clearly, there's a practical limit to this method), which would produce the camera's original image size on the Polaroid film.

[dazedgonebye]

Thanks for the information.
I'm hoping that, since the polaroid back was a bit of the standard accessories for this camera, that setback is accounted for.

I wonder how I can verify this?

[Walter Calahan]

Best way to learn is to shoot some Polaroid to find out for yourself.

[BrianShaw]

Any primers on Polaroid in general would be appreciated.

http://www.polaroid.com/service/filmdatasheets/3_4/index.html

http://www.polaroid.com/service/userguides/photographic/protech_ug.html

[dazedgonebye]

http://www.polaroid.com/service/filmdatasheets/3_4/index.html

http://www.polaroid.com/service/userguides/photographic/protech_ug.html

Thanks Brian

[Donald Qualls]

Thanks for the information.
I'm hoping that, since the polaroid back was a bit of the standard accessories for this camera, that setback is accounted for.

I wonder how I can verify this?

It should be fairly simple to get an empty Polaroid pack (I'd be happy to send you one for the cost of shipping, but it'd cost you almost half the price of a full one), disassemble it, and put a ground glass (or substitute -- a piece of CD case with frosted cellophane tape on the side toward the lens works very well) inside where the negatives would rest, mount that in the Polaroid back, open the shutter, and check the focus with a loupe. The film pack won't require spring tension to rest correctly in the back (they usually have a spring, but it's at the end, mainly to eject the empty when you lift the end away from the hinge), so doing this with the back open won't cause a problem.

However, a Polaroid back designed to fit that camera or mount should take care of the film plane correctly, and one designed to fit is the only kind that'll work with a 2x3 back.

If you get film from somewhere like B&H, East Coast Photo, etc., it'll only cost about $9 plus shipping (combine with another order to keep the shipping from looking so bad) to check it -- you can probably even get Polaroid film locally, if you can find a camera shop that still sells professional films (Ritz doesn't seem to carry it any more, but there's a local shop in this small town that does). Obviously you'll get a better indication with slower film (so you can shoot at a wider aperture and DOF won't mask error), but also keep in mind you'll be seeing what amounts to a 6x7 or 6x9 contact print, or at most a 3x4 contact print (if the setup uses a negative diopter), so the sharpness standard isn't anything like as high as it would be with film intended to be enlarged by 3x or more.

[dazedgonebye]

I'll pick some film up at the local pro shop and give it a try.
I'm not sure I understand why I should expect less sharpness though. Can you explain?

[Donald Qualls]

Not that you'll necessarily get less sharpness, but a Polaroid, unless on Type 665 (now out of production), needs to be no sharper than a print, while a negative intended for enlargement needs much smaller circles of confusion...