new55 kickstarter has begun

[Alan9940]

So your packets feel rather puffy before you load them, too? I thought maybe the decreased atmospheric pressure here in Flag had caused the sealed packets to expand more than normal causing them to blow apart when inserted into the holder.

Yeah, after all the material I shot and having read glowing reports in various places I began to think that my 35 years of LF use taught me nothing! Back in the day, I shot a ton of Polaroid Type 52 and 55 and the only issue I ever had was not paying close enough attention to the pull and finding that I pulled too fast/slow. But, that was fully my mistake.

I wouldn't say they feel puffy, but they do feel thicker than any Polaroid packet I remember using. Honestly, I think that could be the key to "goo" all over the inside of the roller area. We're talking pretty tight tolerances here...how many thousands of an inch thicker could a packet be and still work properly? I have no clue. But, like you I discovered that the roller area was a total mess with "goo" when I couldn't get a packet into the holder! But, even from the very first packet (with pristine rollers) I found it unnecessarily difficult to load a packet. In other words, I couldn't start a packet, and then grab the end and push it home; rather, I had to start it, then grab each side of the packet up near the holder, and coax it in. This same scenario applied to two different holders, too, though my 545Pro seemed to work a little easier than my original 545.

Oh, and when the packet clips it doesn't sound right and I loose a bit of confidence that everything will work as it's supposed to. I found pulling the outer cover to make an exposure, and then pushing it back home difficult, too.

I don't mean to sound negative (pardon the pun)...simply reporting my experiences. I will keep an eye on New55 and will buy a box or two every once in awhile to see what progress has been made. Hopefully, one day I'll be able to return to shooting 4x5 instant film on a regular basis.

Kind regards,
Alan

[BobCrowley]

Thanks for your many constructive criticisms and recommendations.

We've improved the pod and eliminated leaks, improved the negative and its speed, corrected the reagent fill to a more precise fill, fixed the air in the pod problem which expanded above sea level, eliminated the "solarization" caused by chemical fogging, fixed the spread so that it covers much better, reduced the processing time by half, improved print density and tone dramatically so that the Dmax in particular is really black, eliminated the sepia color caused by the formation of Carey Lea silver - - all over the last four months.

Now we have to get the gap right. Tight gaps cause mottle. Polaroid suffered from this in the early days too. It's too tight in some holders, perhaps a perfect storm of old stiff rubber and paper manufacturing tolerances. This is the subject for today, and every day until this subject is also addressed. . Each batch has been small and we are seeing a combination of old batches and new in the results online.

Meanwhile, people are helping support the project along with all of you which we are grateful for!

http://new55.net

[Jim Cole]

Thanks for your many constructive criticisms and recommendations.

We've improved the pod and eliminated leaks, improved the negative and its speed, corrected the reagent fill to a more precise fill, fixed the air in the pod problem which expanded above sea level, eliminated the "solarization" caused by chemical fogging, fixed the spread so that it covers much better, reduced the processing time by half, improved print density and tone dramatically so that the Dmax in particular is really black, eliminated the sepia color caused by the formation of Carey Lea silver - - all over the last four months.

Now we have to get the gap right. Tight gaps cause mottle. Polaroid suffered from this in the early days too. It's too tight in some holders, perhaps a perfect storm of old stiff rubber and paper manufacturing tolerances. This is the subject for today, and every day until this subject is also addressed. . Each batch has been small and we are seeing a combination of old batches and new in the results online.

Meanwhile, people are helping support the project along with all of you which we are grateful for!

http://new55.net

Thanks for the update and the answer as to why my packets are exploding in the holder. I'm glad you're making progress. I guess I should just sell my remaining film to someone at a lower altitude that may be able to use it. It's a waste up here at 7000 ft.

[Alan9940]

Hello Bob,

Thank you for the followup! I know the New55 team is very busy resolving issues, has accomplished a LOT since the Kickstarter days, and all remain dedicated to the project. I have applauded this effort and have supported the project through my Kickstarter pledge and subsequent purchases of film. I didn't mean to be critical with anything I've posted here; rather, I was simply relaying my findings to date as honestly as I could. However, the bottom line for me is that I'm retired and cannot continue to buy film that just doesn't provide usable negatives. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I truly hope that New55 becomes a roaring success and I will continue to occasionally buy your product to see if it finally "gels" for me someday.

Kind regards,
Alan

[EdSawyer]

it's nice to hear progress is still being made!

[Fred L]

thanks for the fresh info Bob. Quick question about the solarisation, does this mean the negative is less prone or won't solarize if we don't shield it right away ? That would be a most welcome development <rimshot>

[Andrew O'Neill]

And they're offering Atomic-X, in 4x5 sheets for our regular film holders! http://shop.new55.net/collections/fr...nt=11257036739

[peter schrager]

So what is this atomic x film??
And why would I want use it

[Andrew O'Neill]

To support new55. Pretty good price for a box of 4x5.

[vdonovan2000]

So what is this atomic x film??
And why would I want use it

I like it, I find it has a tonality similar to Plus-X. Maybe it's supposed to be like Panatomic X? I never used Panatomic X in sheet film, so I can't compare it, but I sure loved it as a roll film. Anyway, Atomic X is nice film.