Polaroid 55 clearing ideas

[anglophone1]

I have a stock of 12 boxes that I'm about to start using on a project, first trip is to Scotland, I'm in France and I've left my clearing tank in Ireland!
I've read several alternatives here, anyone got any ideas that will still hold good.
The project is field not studio based (environmental portraits) so portability is key.
I'm shooting a Razzle with 135 to keep it all lightweight so it's really an opportunity to find a compact portable but sturdy alternative to the bucket, I reckon to shoot no more than 10 per day and will have a base to return and wash properly.
I will not want to process later ( one obvious solution) as I wan to give each subject their print straight after the shoot.
Best ideas for this folks?
Thanks
Clive

[RawheaD]

Shooting FP-100C45 in the field, I've found the wax paper method to work quite well. Specifically:

(1) peel off print, give to subject
(2) wait as long as you can to allow emulsion side to dry
(3) cover emulsion side with kitchen wax paper
(4) store in a ziplock bag till you get back to base

[anglophone1]

Pola 55 clearing ideas anyone?

[Frank Petronio]

I didn't know that there was any Type 55 that was still good? Have you tested it recently?

Shoot one for the subject and one for the darkroom. Especially being old, you might need a stop more exposure for your negative versus a decent print. If you need confirmation that you got the shot, use digital ;-p Or better yet, get a second body with Fuji Instant in it for reliable prints. Even a cheap Instax type camera would suffice. Then process later. Why make it hard on yourself?

As far as clearing in the field, the bucket was pretty good for the bulk it was. You could put each film into it's own Rubbermaid tray but a dozen of them would take up a lot of room.

[sanchi heuser]

Clive,

Best would be to put polyester sheets (or any other plastic that will not react with the chemicals) on each side of the negative, the sandwich into a ziploc and ziploc into a plastic box.

The negative must not dry, later it can be and washed.
Just put it out peel the plastic sheets away and dip into a 18% natriumsulfite solution.

Some people propose a box with water and put the negatives in.
I think that method is not very good cause the negatives will move to much
in the box and scratch.

Cheers Andi

[anglophone1]

i've just ordered some lock&lock boxes that are the rigt size, jus need to find some polyester sheet.

Clive,

Best would be to put polyester sheets (or any other plastic that will not react with the chemicals) on each side of the negative, the sandwich into a ziploc and ziploc into a plastic box.

The negative must not dry, later it can be and washed.
Just put it out peel the plastic sheets away and dip into a 18% natriumsulfite solution.

Some people propose a box with water and put the negatives in.
I think that method is not very good cause the negatives will move to much
in the box and scratch.

Cheers Andi

[anglophone1]

Frank , bought a case back end of 2009, have kept it fridged,and been testing before shoots. last test this week at IS0 50, looked good.
As i said I've left my bucket at the other end of Europe and I'm flying up to Scotland to shoot next week so thought it might be good to find an alterantive, and more compact solution.
One of the resaons for using 55 on this is to be able to give sunject "their picture" too, if shooti FP100 in my 195 alongside, I might as well use ordinary BW film...........


I didn't know that there was any Type 55 that was still good? Have you tested it recently?

Shoot one for the subject and one for the darkroom. Especially being old, you might need a stop more exposure for your negative versus a decent print. If you need confirmation that you got the shot, use digital ;-p Or better yet, get a second body with Fuji Instant in it for reliable prints. Even a cheap Instax type camera would suffice. Then process later. Why make it hard on yourself?

As far as clearing in the field, the bucket was pretty good for the bulk it was. You could put each film into it's own Rubbermaid tray but a dozen of them would take up a lot of room.

[D. Bryant]

Frank , bought a case back end of 2009, have kept it fridged,and been testing before shoots. last test this week at IS0 50, looked good.
As i said I've left my bucket at the other end of Europe and I'm flying up to Scotland to shoot next week so thought it might be good to find an alterantive, and more compact solution.
One of the resaons for using 55 on this is to be able to give sunject "their picture" too, if shooti FP100 in my 195 alongside, I might as well use ordinary BW film...........

Back in the day when I was sort of addicted to Type 55 I started out storing the wet negatives in a plastic container with a top that sealed shut. Briefly as each negative needed to be preserved I would wrap the negative in a water dampened paper towel and stacked into the box. More convenient than carrying the official bucket made by Polaroid which I later used back in the darkroom to clear the goo, then followed up with proper washing.

FWIW, shooting at ISO 50 did not produce an optimal neg. Also don't for get to coat the prints with the applicator, otherwise they will oxidize and fade. Ansel Adams recommended that one technique for reducing printing density of the print was to leave then uncoated and let the print fade and then coat.

Good luck!

[Noel Peirce]

Pretest your film. Also shoot two exposures in the field. You'll probably find that an additional 1/2 to 1 stop more will give you a more printable negative (better shadow detail) than what you'd have with the best print negative. Give the subject their print and hold the other packet for development until back from the field. And like others have said, just hold your first neg. in a plastic air tight bag with wax paper or the equivalent sealed over the emulsion. The undeveloped back up neg. will be good insurance and probably the better negative technically.

[BrianShaw]

last test this week at IS0 50, looked good...

Which looked good, the neg or the print? Both are not generally good at the same time. The concept of both a pos + neg in the same exposure was always much better than the real product.

[Frank Petronio]

Well the fact that he is using a Razzle implies handheld use, and he is going to Scotland in the Fall with film that is effectively ISO 25 to 32 and using a f/4.7 or /5.6 lens.

In other words, he's f-ked before he gets going! Unless he can accurately focus that thing wide open and hold it steady at an 1/8th of a second, there won't be anything to shoot even on the brighter days!

[anglophone1]

Frank you are so judgemental!
Razzle because it's smaller, lighter for travel and faster to setup than my Tecnika with same speed lens.
Doesn't stop me using it on a tripod though?
Of course if I'd said speed graphic with aero Ektar to get another few stops you wouldn't have liked that either!
BTW was in Scotland last week - bright and sunny 125 at 5.6 iso. 50
Clive(also the wrong side of 60,been shooting for 30+ years and very opinionated :)



Well the fact that he is using a Razzle implies handheld use, and he is going to Scotland in the Fall with film that is effectively ISO 25 to 32 and using a f/4.7 or /5.6 lens.

In other words, he's f-ked before he gets going! Unless he can accurately focus that thing wide open and hold it steady at an 1/8th of a second, there won't be anything to shoot even on the brighter days!

[Frank Petronio]

This is all I know!

http://scotlandthedamp.blogspot.com/2005/01/scottish-weather-lesson-one.html

[anglophone1]

BTW I live half the year on the SW coast of Ireland, where summer is (supposedly) one random Thursday in maybe August.
However see http://clive-evans.photoshelter.com/gallery/5-days-in-West-Cork-Ireland/G00007hHFz9qjkBY/
all shot in a week in May.
Actually both the Irish and Scots promote this myth to keep people away.
Of course in two weeks the mist will be down and it'll be pitch dark which is why I also have 50 sheets of Tri X as well as 3 boxes of pola55;-)

[sanchi heuser]

Back in the day when I was sort of addicted to Type 55 I started out storing the wet negatives in a plastic container with a top that sealed shut. Briefly as each negative needed to be preserved I would wrap the negative in a water dampened paper towel and stacked into the box. More convenient than carrying the official bucket made by Polaroid which I later used back in the darkroom to clear the goo, then followed up with proper washing.

FWIW, shooting at ISO 50 did not produce an optimal neg. Also don't for get to coat the prints with the applicator, otherwise they will oxidize and fade. Ansel Adams recommended that one technique for reducing printing density of the print was to leave then uncoated and let the print fade and then coat.

Good luck!

Don't know if if it's a good idea to put a paper towel on the emulsion side?
There's enough of paste on the emulsion side. To prevent that paste from drying and
hardening will do it.
Clive will not be walking through death valley:D

The point with the difference of how much exposure needs the negative and positive
is what I experienced.
I'd exposure for a good negative and give the positives to the subjects. They will not be unhappy if their picture is a little bit overexposed.
Another point: Often it happened that the pictures I exposed on the positive were better than the others, maybe that's only my karma?

The fading is what I saw with some 55 positives:
without covering they 'll fade nearly completely away after a year or two.

[false_Aesthetic]

A few years ago a photographer (Steve Tourlentes) told me that he's cleared type 55 in coke. He basically said that he could buy a liter anywhere in the world.

Whether he was exaggerating or pulling my leg, I dunno. But it might be worth a try.

[anglophone1]

Guessing you mean Coca Cola not the other stuff? (also available all over the world-but more expensive usually)

[sanchi heuser]

http://www.documentation.com/images/sample_projects/polaroid_sheet_films.pdf

[D. Bryant]

Don't know if if it's a good idea to put a paper towel on the emulsion side?


I wet (saturated) paper towel won't hurt it a bit.

[Steve Smith]

jus need to find some polyester sheet.

At work, I have lots of polyester sheet, mainly 0.125m thick. I could guillotine some to size and post it to you if that would help.


Steve.

[Steve Smith]

and he is going to Scotland in the Fall

Or Autumn as we call it!

I went to Arran in Scotland in Autumn a few years ago and the weather was perfect. I was also fortunate once to go to Manchester on the day it didn't rain!


Steve.

[Ari]

Assuming your Polaroid cache is still good...

I used to use a large peanut butter jar, cleaned of course, and with a lid.
I'd just fill it with water, and plunk the 55 or 665 negs in there for the day until I could get back home or to the hotel.
Once back, I'd just rinse each neg in temperate running water for a minute or two, and make sure that any black goop was washed off; they were then hung up to dry.
The negs are still perfect after, what, 5-10 years, and even though I washed them with my hands under running water, and not too gently either, they bear no marks or fingerprints.
You don't really need sodium sulphite to clear the negs, just a good washing.

As for the prints, make sure you wipe each one with the fixer provided in each film box, cover the whole area.
Tell the person not to let the emulsion side touch anything until it is dry.
An alternative to that is take down names and addresses and send each person a copy of their photo, an enlargement of the negative.