Impossible Project announces 8x10 instant film coming summer 2012...

[bitnaut]

They even have test pics on their site to show their progress! http://www.the-impossible-project.com/projects/8x10/

I'm just wondering how much it will be...

[bitnaut]

Whoops...I stand corrected! You can buy it now for $99US!!!! https://shop.the-impossible-project.com/newsletters/pioneer?date=2012-06-08&start=0

[Steve Smith]

I stand corrected!

But you weren't wrong.

Is this a pos/neg system or just a large print?


Steve.

[buggz]

Does it generate BOTH a positive and negative AT THE SAME TIME?
Or no?

[jp]

99$ isn't bad for 15 sheets; it'd be cheaper than tmax.

I don't understand how the polaroid 8x10 stuff worked; I wasn't in LF when that was possible.

"Available in Silver Shade tones, this new integral instant film (NOT peel apart film) for Polaroid 8x10 holders awaits your testing, experience and feedback. One pack contains 15 negatives and 15 positives, for 15 impressive large format black & white images. The boxes also contain a quick start guide. The basis of this film is our 600 Silver Shade film with around 600 ASA speed. "

[ljsegil]

Too bad they won't sell any to us poor unwashed. Pioneers only, whoever they may be.
LJS

[bitnaut]

I've been told by Impossible Project that they will start selling 8x10 to the general public mid-July but probably at a higher price than their $99 test film.

For the Pioneers, they had only 40 test film packs to sell and they sold out in a day, according to the same source at Impossible.

[bitnaut]

Does it generate BOTH a positive and negative AT THE SAME TIME?
Or no?

I would say no it doesn't...it's based on their 600 ASA instant non-peel apart film.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

at a higher price than their $99 test film.

When a European company sells the same product for EURO 99- or USD 99.99, you know 'instantly' where the market is, and who deserves a 25% rebate ...

We also have prices like EURO 99,99, I don't know why the Impossible people have chosen a rounded price @99- ;)
Yes, our European gas stations know the trick of "the last-digit-fixed-to-9"

[Steve Smith]

I would say no it doesn't...it's based on their 600 ASA instant non-peel apart film.

I would be interested in product which gives an instant negative only in 5 x 4 and 10 x 8.


Steve.

[welly]

Here's one of your pioneers.

http://www.polanoid.net/jump/?to=pictures&pid=485233

[Nasser]

Thank you for the news!! Great to hear that!

[DrTang]

From what I read... it's non peel apart..so unless you wanna wreck what you took to experiment..there is only a positive

and

like a dag..it will be reversed


still - - great, great, great news

I shot some P-film 8x10 years ago.....and it's like crack..it's crack for photographers

[Steve Smith]

like a dag..it will be reversed

Why will it be reversed? Prints from pack film cameras aren't reversed.


Steve.

[Brian C. Miller]

Too bad they won't sell any to us poor unwashed. Pioneers only, whoever they may be.
LJS

Impossible Pioneer Card Program (http://shop.the-impossible-project.com/pioneer/): "Show your pioneer spirit by buying a total of 30 films packs ..."

Apparently I'd need to be using a Polaroid camera or the 405 back.

[Sal Santamaura]

...like a dag..it will be reversed...


Why will it be reversed? Prints from pack film cameras aren't reversed...This stuff doesn't resemble anything Polaroid ever sold in 8x10. It's not like pack film, which exposed a negative (paper or, for Type 665, film) and then transferred the negative image by diffusion to a paper print. It's non-peel-apart, i.e. a monochrome SX-70-type product. SX-70 cameras bounced the lens' image off a mirror before it hit the film, resulting in a laterally correct image. This 8x10 version just sits in the back of a view camera.

I wouldn't get very excited about it. TIP literature (follow the links in previous posts) says, in effect, the image won't last. If you want to see it for a long time, scan the print. :) Even at $99 for 15 sheets, I'd call it a waste of time and money.

If they could actually bring to market an 8x10 version of Type 55 (which provided a positive print and, after clearing, a printable negative) with quality control and long-term keeping qualities approaching Polaroid's -- at no more than $15 per sheet -- there would really be something to get excited over. As it stands, nothing from TIP to date deserves credit for being more than experimental trials. In my opinion.

[bitnaut]

The fact that they're even bothering to revive 8x10 format instant film (before even 4x5!) is exciting enough to me.

[Fred L]

and don't forget this one in the works (was posted here before I believe...)

http://new55project.blogspot.ca/

[rom pec]

The film is not a peel apart like the previous polaroid 8x10 film such as 809 or 803, its basically an 8x10 integral film. The positive is a clear acetate with the chemical pods and the negative is similar to the old 8x10 polaroid. Just like the old 8x10 polaroid, you need a processor and a loading tray (depending on the type of film holder you are using). The film is beautiful, sharp with soft contrast and a touch of warm tone. I applause Impossible Project for venturing into 8x10 film when others bailed out.

[bitnaut]

So, is the image reversed then?

[Tim Povlick]

So, is the image reversed then?

Yes, it is.

Tim

[Degroto]

I am really excited by this. I have the stuff and I would love to use it! However I hope Bob Crowley and his team can team up wit TIP to create an 8x10 version of P/N film. That would be really awesome!

[bitnaut]

Yes, it is.

Tim

Well, if the end use is to be scanned then I guess that's fine...otherwise...hmmm.

[Ben Syverson]

I'm really loving this film. It has absolutely gorgeous tones... I'm still dialing in the ISO.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5200/7437352306_7580208845_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bensyverson/7437352306/)

[Frank Petronio]

How do you get it?

And how much?

[Vascilli]

Thanks for posting the photo. Now I know the film is actually good. (The examples on their website leave much to be desired in my eyes.)

[Frank Petronio]

Haha it's been a few hours since he posted, I am wondering if he still has an image to look at....

[Ben Syverson]

Haha, true... I would definitely scan anything you shoot within a few hours. Impossible emulsions change over time, so if you like how an image looks, you better scan it before it shifts.

I think the first test batch is gone, but they'll be making more soon!

[Vascilli]

Is it from oxidization or something similar that can be mitigated by soaking the film in some sort of clear-coat? (A fixer, of sorts.)

[bracan]

Excellent portrait Ben!
Is the image shifted yet?

[Ben Syverson]

They've turned slightly warmer in color since I shot them—I neutralized it in this scan. I think you can mitigate fading and/or warming by sealing the prints in a bag with a desiccant for a month or so. I haven't tried it yet.

These new materials are much better than the older generations, which started out warm and would go coppery / sepia in short order...

[buggz]

Do get the negatives with these images, or can you recover the negative like Fuj instants?

[Ben Syverson]

As far as I know, you can't recover negatives. I had a bad shot that I tried to peel apart, but it was very spotty. Maybe if you let it dry it would be easier?

The Type 55 guy has had great success getting a quality negative to process with reagent. It was actually better than the original T55. If you're interested in that, get in touch with him. The last I heard, he had everything ready to go, but no one (in his mind) to buy it. Maybe it's because his site is a horrible blog, and it's impossible to figure out what the status of the project is. He sounded very discouraged, so maybe what he needs is a business partner with social media skills. Someone out there, email him!

[Riccis]

What about the processor and holders you may need? I assume IP will also sell them otherwise they will have a hard time selling film or whatever processors are available used will get really expensive.

Cheers,

[Ben Syverson]

That has already happened... apparently 8x10 processors have been seen to go for over $1000 on eBay. I'm glad I picked one up a couple years ago...

[Frank Petronio]

They used to be free for picking up ;-p

I wouldn't spend the money on 8x10 anyway, you would get some nice photos but it might take you $500 to get the first decent one and at $30 per shot or whatever these come in at... (I have no idea but you can be sure it will not be cheap, take a look at their other film prices to get an idea.) That high per-shot price would hinder me creatively, I would experiment less.

Isn't it ironic that we now use digital to proof before we take the Polaroid?

While 8x10 Impossible Polaroids would be too rich for my blood, I am holding onto my couple remaining 545 backs because even though it would be expensive as fuck, I'd be one of those fools that would shoot a Type 52 film again, even if it had processing flaws, staining, and fugitive color casts, limited archival stability. Even then, I would probably just shoot the occasional box, not making it my main medium. So I'm the market, I bet there are 5,000 other people like me out there. At $100/20 exposures x 5,000 = $500,000 line. Doesn't sound too Impossible. 8x10 at $300 for ten exp would make it appealing to the well-heeled, some could shoot nothing but and produce good work. So Paola Roversi buys a few thousand boxes....

[sanchi heuser]

Some of the 8x10 processors are offered without loading tray.
According Polaroid's instruction manual that tray is necessary:
http://www.the-impossible-project.com/resources/8x10/8x10_manual.pdf

There's was a Calumet 8x10 Polaroid Processor built.
It works without electricity, is foldable, with integrated loading tray and way more lighter.
The same 8x10 holder can be used. I heard that the handling with the processor is a bit different,
ask me not what exactly the difference is, didn't found the info anywhere.

[BrianShaw]

... I am holding onto my couple remaining 545 backs because even though it would be expensive as fuck, I'd be one of those fools that would shoot a Type 52 film again, even if it had processing flaws, staining, and fugitive color casts, limited archival stability. Even then, I would probably just shoot the occasional box, not making it my main medium. So I'm the market, I bet there are 5,000 other people like me out there. ...

4,998 remaining. You and I are accounted for!

[jb7]

Lovely portrait Ben-

I've never seen an 8x10 processor- might it be possible to cobble one together?
When a box and some rollers costs $1000, it's amazing what you can accomplish...

[Ben Syverson]

Calumet made a very basic field processor that was basically a set of rollers, so it's definitely possible... Maybe Calumet will start making them again if enough people ask!

To Sanchi: There are two kinds of holders: the 05 and the 06. The 06 requires a loading tray. The 05 just goes right into the processor. I've never used the 05 type, but Susan (from the picture) has, and she says it's pretty easy.

[aluncrockford]

I think some of us might be missing the point , for the vast number of users 10x8 Polaroid was used for testing exposure and composition before shooting film, and for that it will be perfect, even if it is reversed

[Ben Syverson]

I wouldn't use any instant film for exposure testing... It's too unpredictable. It pains me to say it, but a DSLR is the perfect tool for understanding and managing exposure.

[Frank Petronio]

Hate to break it to you but it was the rock solid professional proofing method for over 30 years. You could judge it to a tenth of a stop, from shot to shot... in the studio. Sure doing a one off in mid winter isn't proofing, but if you shot them consistently then the Polaroid and Fuji stuff was very trustworthy.

[sanchi heuser]

Calumet made a very basic field processor that was basically a set of rollers, so it's definitely possible... Maybe Calumet will start making them again if enough people ask!

To Sanchi: There are two kinds of holders: the 05 and the 06. The 06 requires a loading tray. The 05 just goes right into the processor. I've never used the 05 type, but Susan (from the picture) has, and she says it's pretty easy.

Ben,

was new to me that there were two different holders, good info, thanks.

[Brian K]

I wouldn't use any instant film for exposure testing... It's too unpredictable. It pains me to say it, but a DSLR is the perfect tool for understanding and managing exposure.

A DSLR is a great tool for proofing, but as someone who shot thousands of 8x10 color polaroids there was little alternative when doing a still life and you wanted a TTL, that is exact camera POV to be able to study the finer points of the image prior to film. Some still lifes were so precise that to be a half a degree off optical line the lighting could appear very differently. And BTW I still have my 8x10 polaroid processor, tray and holder.

8x10 polaroids did however require a certain amount of experience and interpretation when it came to tonalities and exposure though. But after a few hundred you got the knack. People now though don't have the patience to learn and master these tools, they want it fool proof from the get go.

And as Frank stated, it was THE proofing system for many, many years.

[Ben Syverson]

By the way, have you guys seen this?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9MnS4-aDe3g/T8aiFucV5QI/AAAAAAAACkc/GsD4aULnOJI/s320/instant8by10.jpg (http://new55project.blogspot.com/2012/05/instant-8x10-pn.html)

[Frank Petronio]

The last 15 years of Polaroid they finally films that came close to matching chrome film, 100 ISO, decent color and sharpness. As long as you were at a reasonable room temperature and it was still in date, it worked very well.

Playing around with this Impossible Project stuff that is all over the place really makes you appreciate how tight Polaroid got it.

[EdSawyer]

If you think Polaroid had it all tightened up, Fuji easily had a much tighter and better process with FP-100C than polaroid ever had with their peel-apart films. FP100C is the film polaroid should have been making all along. Sadly now it seems fuji has given up on 4x5 FP100c.

IP is making 8x10 stuff since that is the only other machinery they were able to salvage from the old polaroid factory. They don't have the 4x5 machinery. They'd probably prefer to make 4x5, all things considered, given that it's a larger market. New55 looks promising if they can ever get past the prototype stage into production.

[Ben Syverson]

The New55 project is stuck in a Catch-22. They can't move forward with production until they have money, but they can't make money until they have a product to sell. Bob has mentioned that he doesn't want to do Kickstarter for some reason, so short of divine intervention, I'm not sure what the plan is.

Honestly, if he just got a better website instead of a Blogspot blog, they could probably raise enough money via preorders in under a week. Time to pay a college kid $2000 to make a nice eCommerce site.

[rdenney]

Hate to break it to you but it was the rock solid professional proofing method for over 30 years.

Peel-apart Polaroid was, but not the instant SX-70-type direct-positive stuff. Isn't that what the Impossible Project produces?

Rick "who still checks exposure with Fujiroid" Denney

[Ben Syverson]

Peel-apart Polaroid was, but not the instant SX-70-type direct-positive stuff. Isn't that what the Impossible Project produces?

Rick "who still checks exposure with Fujiroid" Denney
Yeah, integral is a much different beast than peel-apart... With peel-apart, you stop development by ripping the developer from the print. With integral, you're relying on a chemical reaction to slow and eventually stop development with no intervention.

[BobCrowley]

The New55 project is stuck in a Catch-22. They can't move forward with production until they have money, but they can't make money until they have a product to sell. Bob has mentioned that he doesn't want to do Kickstarter for some reason, so short of divine intervention, I'm not sure what the plan is.

Honestly, if he just got a better website instead of a Blogspot blog, they could probably raise enough money via preorders in under a week. Time to pay a college kid $2000 to make a nice eCommerce site.

Send me that college kid and the money too if you can. Seriously, this is not a kickstarter thing. Websites don't make products. The investment goes to the ability to manufacture the product, not the order fulfillment. We're not stuck at all as there is plenty going on.

[Ben Syverson]

Bob, that's good to hear! I'm sure you're aware that there's a large collection of people who are anxious to give you money! Best of luck.

[codyjgraham]

Now if they would make 4x5 and the smaller packfiln they'd be perfect

[EdSawyer]

"Now if they would make 4x5 and the smaller packfiln they'd be perfect "

No, what would be perfect is if Fuji continued to make FP100c45. And brought the price more in line with their smaller FP100c film.

-Ed

[sanchi heuser]

FWIW, I found a nice video from Mat Marrash about operating the
Calumet 8x10 processor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A9i4xkDkNg

[gth]

Peel-apart Polaroid was, but not the instant SX-70-type direct-positive stuff. Isn't that what the Impossible Project produces?

Rick "who still checks exposure with Fujiroid" Denney

I looked at their website and came away confused if it is peel-apart or SX-70 type. All their other film is for sure, but the 8x10 examples they are showing looked like peel-apart film. This is made in a different new machine the got from a US factory.

???????

[Fred L]

fresh info. not for the light of wallet and the image is reversed but what the hey ;)

http://bit.ly/O6GIEi

[cosmicexplosion]

get the wet plate look at half the cost

[EdSawyer]

It doesn't even look *that* good. better off with expired real polaroid 8x10 film.


get the wet plate look at half the cost

[RichardSperry]

Availability of the holders and processors is going to be a huge bottleneck to their deal.

And that sepia tone leaves much to be desired, if that's what it all looks like.

[Tim Povlick]

As someone who managed to score a box of the new 8x10 Impossible film allow me to share some thoughts on this. The results I've seen so far are much better than on the BJP site. It's more B&W and uniform. Not perfect but getting closer. The results are much better than an old color film the seller included with the processor I purchased.

Placing processed film in a drying bag as they suggests seems to have prevented the change to sepia. I've tried this with the SX-70 film with good success. The company is continuing to work on improving the results in B&W and color and have some a long way since starting.

I used to think the holders / processors would be a big problem but it seems more and more are showing up for sale. I assume a lot of devices were sold compared to what current/future demand will be. The only unknown is how many were tossed out when the film was no longer.

_..--
TiM

[Ben Syverson]

Many, many processors were tossed in the dumpster when the film was discontinued. However, Polaroid made bargeloads of them, so there are still plenty out there. They'll trickle back to the market once people clean out their basements and realize they can score $250 for that machine they never got around to using.

[DrTang]

20 bucks a shot (okay - 19 per plus shipping)

blah

due out august 30

[Ben Syverson]

The 8x10 Kodak I shoot is $15 / sheet, and it doesn't develop itself.

[Thom Bennett]

I just posted a Polaroid Processor and an 8x10 Slide printer with holders in the For Sale section. Be a part of the Zeitgeist!