A couple of solarized Type 55's from a year or so ago. I'll have to break the last of the Type 55 one of these days and have another go at it.
A couple of solarized Type 55's from a year or so ago. I'll have to break the last of the Type 55 one of these days and have another go at it.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
Thanks, Jim. Gandolfi definitely has much better 'control' over the solarization process. I think age might have some affect on the develpoer - fixer actions on the pod's monobath which probably affects the amount of solarization, so control is a nebulous thing. I found I had to peel it apart fairly quickly and hit it with the flash...I think the strength of developer part of the monobath decreases with age allowing the fixer part to stop the solarization if one waits too long to peel it apart. Just a pure guess and I more than welcome someone saying it is all nonsense.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
Jim, you do not need functional pods. You can use your favorite developer to develop type 55 negative, here's note from awhile ago:
http://victoriasphoto.com/Notes/Polaroid_55/
Victoria
I do miss Type 55. I miss that liquidy look. I want to experiment with Acros and other fine-grained films in monobaths to see if I can get something close.
In the mean time, here are a few from college, the last time I shot Type 55:
Antiquarian by David R Munson, on Flickr
The Muffin by David R Munson, on Flickr
Libby the Dog by David R Munson, on Flickr
And a few more:
Wrench by David R Munson, on Flickr
Chisel by David R Munson, on Flickr
Hand Photogram by David R Munson, on Flickr
Does type 52 count? I never did much with 55, but loved the way 52 handled highlights as in this photo of money plant. It did some interesting things with the wall texture, too.
Will,
I really like it.
Hugo
Thanks Hugo!
Bookmarks