Compare type 52, 54, and 55 print quality

[Jeff_1630]

From what I gather Type 52 is the best but is not avaliable to me locally. It might be easier to use either 54 or 55, that way I wouldn't have to stock as many boxes at home (both are stocked by my local camera shop).

Can anyone comment on the print quality of these films, for overall look, ease of use, and archival stability. Also, are there ways to enhance the stability of Polaroid prints thought chemical treatment?

thanks,

Jeff

[Nacio Jan Brown]

I have experience with Type 55 only - gorgeous prints - fine grain and sharp. I have 30-35 year old negatives that remain as they were originally. njb

[Bill Jefferson]

Hi Jeff, Your trying to compare apples, T-52 and T-55 are print coated T-54 is coaterless, ISO's different also, T-52=400iso T-55= 50 iso T-54=100 iso, each was developed for different applications, I don't use a lot of T-52, mostly t-55 for the neg,

Bill Jefferson Sr. Eval. Tech. Polaroid Corp

[Jeff_1630]

Bill,

I'm not trying to be difficult!:-) Type 52 is supposed to make the nicest prints. I want to know how close are the prints from 54 and 55? I don't really care about speed or coated vs coaterless unless it affects permanence. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. If my local store stocked 52, I'd use 52 for prints and 55 for negatives. That's what I'm trying to get at.

thanks

[Bill_1856]

Jeff, I posted a somewhat similar question recently regarding types 52 vs 54. Virtually everyone who responded recommended type 54. By the time I decided, my local store was out of 54 so I ended up with type 52 anyhow. Like type 55 (which I've used in the past) type 52 seems to tend to block up highlights, and otherwise they seem pretty much alike. The added speed (400) of type 52 is a nice bonus, and Polaroid claims that it has the longest scale and most lattitude of their films.

[Frank Petronio]

Hi Jeff, Getting the coating on the 52 or 55 evenly and cleanly is difficult to do everytime. Often some dust or hair will land on the drying print, our you'l lget streaks, etc., especially in the field. Coaterless 54 is much more reliable as any Polaroid is "one of a kind." I like 54 as it has a nice punchy black, and seems "cleaner" (in multiple ways) to me.

Make the store order what you want...

[Jan Pietrzak]

Jeff,

I my working with Polaroid film for some 25 to 30 years. My visual feeling is I like the type 52 image the best.. It, for me at least has more snap. The type 54 is softer in tone. And I really only use the type 55 for the neg not the print.

As to the coating, you just get very good doing it on type 52. I build a box that held prints for drying, and the top was a good place to coat the print. In looking at my stack of work from the time I was part of the Polaroid Collection all the coatings look good. Remember that you can clean and recoat a print if you want. Use a fresh coater to clean of the old coating use a some what dry/dryer coater to put on a new coating, works well.

Jan

[Scott Walton]

I have used all three over many years and the new Pro 100 I judge my exposure for 4x5 chromes with. The 52 is a bit more contrasty but the new version is better than it used to be and the 55 is nice if you want a negative to print or look at for critical focus. If your shooting mostly one speed, go with the speed of the polaroid or use the Pro100 and change your exposure accordingly. My opinion... the Pro100 is best overall!