Polaroid Type 52 - coal and ice

[Bill_1856]

I've just shot a box of Polaroid type 52 for the first time in many years. It seems to me that the contrast is a lot higher than I remember from previous usage, the highlights are completely burned out without any corresponding good shadow detail. Looking at my prints from 1980 there is none of this, and they have a very nice, long scale of mid-tones. Is this typical of current type 52, or could it be a bad (perhaps unripened) batch of film?

[Bruce Barlow]

Personally, I've moved to Type 72, which is still ASA 400 (occasionally), coaterless (a huge plus), and to my eye looks at least as good, if not better. Try it, you may like it.

[wfwhitaker]

Bill,



I've never thought of Type 52 as having a particularly "nice, long scale". On the contrary it has always seemed to me to respond much as color transparency film in terms of exposure range, i.e., short. Consider your lighting carefully. Type 52 remains my favorite Polaroid. It has a wonderful look. Two of the images on my website (http://wfwhitaker.com) are Type 52.

If you continue to have problems, I would suggest contacting Polaroid.

Regards,
Will