Quality of Polaroid 55 pos/neg film?

[sung]

Hi all,

As I don't have darkroom access, I am considering using Polaroid 55 film which can be processed in daylight.

Does Polaroid film lack sharpness and can 16x20 quality images be produced from this film or are people using this film only to check exposure?
How would it compare to the quality of other films (I use Provia 100F and Acros)?

Any weblinks to photographers who are using this film?

Thanks.

Sung

[Gary Beasley]

Though the prints may be fuzzy the negs are quite sharp and if exposed right the tonality is right up there with the best. I'm told the actual neg material is Panatomic-X or something like it so it's very fine grained.

[Vaughn]

The negative is very good. One does lack development contraols, but one can selenium tone the neg for a bump in contrast.

I have made several 16x20 prints from them...sharp and fine-grained. Keep the rollers clean, though. Dirty rollers can play havoc in areas of even tonality.

Vaughn

[Chris Strobel]

Hi all,

As I don't have darkroom access, I am considering using Polaroid 55 film which can be processed in daylight.

Does Polaroid film lack sharpness and can 16x20 quality images be produced from this film or are people using this film only to check exposure?
How would it compare to the quality of other films (I use Provia 100F and Acros)?

Any weblinks to photographers who are using this film?

Thanks.

Sung

I use type 55 just for the negative.If you go to Flikr they have a Polaroid type 55 group with lots of images.I printed this out at 16x20 from a Epson 4990 scan of a type 55 neg,Its sharp as a tack.Only downside is its pricey.

http://www.pbase.com/cloudswimmer/image/80091221/original.jpg

[g zuili]

Negative from 55 and 655 are panatomic. Very sharp with unique softness. I have some prints up to 3 feet. No problem.

[sung]

..just saw price of film...ouch!

Thanks for the feedback.

[Gary Beasley]

Yeah, ouch. Think about the price of a 4x5 tank and a changing bag to load the film in. All your work can happen on the kitchen table. Contact prints at night or scan the negs, darkroom not needed.

[Vaughn]

Yes, it is very expensive, but those of us who use 8x10 or larger, it does not seem all that bad (everything is relative!)

Another advantage is traveling -- Type 55 shares the same advantages of ready-loads in space and weight. Plus the additional advantage of being able to field check one's exposure, composition and focus when one comes across an image that is a must-have shot.

When traveling, I always back the exposed Type 55 out of the holder without processing -- I then process it back home under better conditions. This is required when I have exposed Type 55 in 25F weather.

But if one is on the road, a couple of trays or tanks, a little Sodium sulfite, photo-flo, and a clothes line, one can process film in the motel room. No worries about transporting undeveloped film and a way to check on the day's work.

Here is a website of a photographer who uses Type 55...

www.elaineling.com

Vaughn

[tim atherton]

there's also Mark Klett (I think that's type 55 he uses?)

http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/05/mark-kletts-rephotographics.html

and Tom Baril (love the music - sure beats that euro/techno-pop so many german Post-Neue Sachlichkeit photographers seem to like putting on their flash sites... mind you the rest of the site is a bit annoying in places)

http://www.tombaril.net/

or some of Toshio Shibata's work

http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/04/toshio-shibata.html

[Frank Petronio]

a few examples, I made 30x40s and they looked fine, but I am a slob

[tim atherton]

a few examples, I made 30x40s and they looked fine, but I am a slob


he hee (I do love the "rules" that regularly seem to come along - you can't make bigger than 16x20 from 4x5 etc etc or any variation therein")

[Vaughn]

he hee (I do love the "rules" that regularly seem to come along - you can't make bigger than 16x20 from 4x5 etc etc or any variation therein")

The Rules are very important -- without them, how would we know when to break them!;)

Vaughn

PS...Frank -- once matted up, did you keep the Type 55 border in the images as you shown presented them to us? Some people like them (I do) and some people hate them...and some present the entire Type 55 boarder (which has its own sets of likers and dislikers!) Showing those, and the showing the rebate around the image area of regular negs, is just another set of rules for people to argue about -- and to break when people see fit. Wonderful images, Frank -- would love to see the real things!

[Frank Petronio]

When I darkroom printed them I hated glass carriers and always cropped in. But now with digital I just draw a path with the pen tool (tedious but worth it.)

I think the PN55 stuff is as fine a grain/as sharp as anything out there, at least as sharp as anyone ever practically would ever need to make a good image.

Size doesn't matter, you have to step back to see larger pictures anyway... I'd do 30x40s from 35mm P3200 if it was a good image.

[drew.saunders]

..just saw price of film...ouch!

Thanks for the feedback.

If you compare type 55 ($75-$85 for a box of 20) to ready/quick load TMX or Acros 100 (about $62/box of 20) and having someone else do the processing (about $3/sheet) it's a wee bit cheaper, and you get a slightly over exposed contact print to go with your negative. With type 55 you're getting the convenience of ready/quick loads, so it's fair to compare the film costs, plus "someone else" is doing all the "dark room" processing. At least that's what I tell myself when I drop another $75 for a box of the stuff. Doing my own processing would probably save a lot of money, but not having to do encourages me to shoot more, so I'll stick with type 55 for my LF B&W work.

Drew

[andy138]

I've just started to use PN55 and I love the negatives I get from it. To me the convenience and fine grain out weighs the lack of processing control. Does anyone know of any good tables of reciprocity failure compensation times for this film? The small graph given by polaroid is not exact to say the least. Also anyone know any tricks on how to back out the envelopes from 545 pro holder without processing it or exposing the film? I tried once and the plastic got jammed and the film was exposed. I've been using it all in the studio and processing it right away, but I'm thinking of taking it into field and I dont want to waste 4 dollar sheets if I dont have to. Thanks.

Andy

[Vaughn]

Andy,

After your exposure and you have slid the outside of the film packet back into the holder, put the lever on "L" (just like when you load it.)

I hold the 545 with the film area towards me.

With your finger, press down on the "button" marked "R" (the big lever pushes down on this button when it is flipped over to the "P" position.) The "R" stands for 'release" -- it releases the holder's grip on the metal end of the film packet.

With your finger on the "R" button" wet your thumb on the other hand and push the packet of film upwards an inch or so (push right in the center of the packet -- it won't hurt the film inside). Pull the film out of the holder -- as an added safe guard, when the metal end of the film packet is about to go thru the rollers, grip the film packet tightly towards the middle and pull it the rest of the way out. This will insure that you don't accidently seperate the film packet if the metal end gets a little caught up going thru the rollers.

Try it a few times with a film packet before heading out into the field.

Vaughn

[andy138]

thanks vaughn, ill try that. sounds like i wasn't being carefull enough to make sure the metal clip didn't get snagged.