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...
Do get the negatives with these images, or can you recover the negative like Fuj instants?
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!
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,
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...
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....
Some of the 8x10 processors are offered without loading tray.
According Polaroid's instruction manual that tray is necessary:
http://www.the-impossible-project.co...x10_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.
4,998 remaining. You and I are accounted for!Originally Posted by Frank Petronio
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...
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks