Alternate Dev for Polaroid 55

Pastiche · Nov 6, 2005

Is there such a beast... ?
I've got five boxes of type 55 Polaroid, pristine - with the trivial exception that there is not a drop in the chem packs.
I'm willing to kiss the paper goodbye, but the negs... I'd like to give the a whirl, no matter what their putative conditions may be.

I've got Perceptol, D-76, Dektol, Acufine, and Clayton and just a whiff of Xtol to work with... any ideas?

I guess the first question is - just how different is the film composition, as compared to "conventional" films?

Any ideas would be appreciated...

If there are none, I'll report back from the DR the next time I'm in there.

BarryWilkinson · Nov 6, 2005

Noah Huber said:
Is there such a beast... ?
I've got five boxes of type 55 Polaroid, pristine - with the trivial exception that there is not a drop in the chem packs.
I'm willing to kiss the paper goodbye, but the negs... I'd like to give the a whirl, no matter what their putative conditions may be.

I've got Perceptol, D-76, Dektol, Acufine, and Clayton and just a whiff of Xtol to work with... any ideas?

I guess the first question is - just how different is the film composition, as compared to "conventional" films?

Any ideas would be appreciated...

If there are none, I'll report back from the DR the next time I'm in there.

Hi Noah,

I would also be very interested in responses to your question. I heard that Kodak made the negative?

If it proved successfull, it's worth buying all the out-dated stuff on that auction site.

Barry

John Bartley · Nov 6, 2005

Noah Huber said:
Is there such a beast... ?

Any ideas would be appreciated...

Noah,

I never developed 55p/n in any conventional developer, but I did ask this same question on a usenet group a couple of years ago and the answer was to consider it to be a "generic" (Kodak / Ilford) asa50 film and develop accordingly with the developer of your choice. The Massive ... site shows FP4+ rated @ ASA50 in D76, 1+1 for 8 minutes. Why not try one like that? - how bad can it be .

cheers

Amund · Nov 6, 2005

Expose at 25/32 , develop in D76 1:1 8min 68deg, should come out just fine.

Pastiche · Nov 6, 2005

SweeeeT!

Nice to know that I just got handed 100 sheets of "50ASA" film!

Thanks for the info guys.

r-s · Nov 6, 2005

I have read more than once that the film is (or is identical to) Panatomic X. I have no URLs but google might bring something up.

<depressing_aside>
Sad to see so many fine emulsions disappear, including the latest casualty, Polaroid's SX-70. Time to start converting my SX-70 cameras to use the 600 film, I guess.
</depressing_aside>

Pastiche · Nov 6, 2005

Thanks r-s, I'll try some more oogling... er.. googleing... ;.)

r-s · Nov 6, 2005

Don't forget to remove the remjet-like backing w/sodium sulfite. I would presume you'd want to do that post-development, but never having used the stuff other than with "the pod", I can't say for certain.

Tom Hoskinson · Nov 6, 2005

r-s said:
I have read more than once that the film is (or is identical to) Panatomic X. I have no URLs but google might bring something up.

<depressing_aside>
Sad to see so many fine emulsions disappear, including the latest casualty, Polaroid's SX-70. Time to start converting my SX-70 cameras to use the 600 film, I guess.
</depressing_aside>

Comparative testing that I have done in the past showed that 55PN produced identical results to Kodak Panatomic - X.

Therefore, I recommend Rodinal diluted 1 + 50. Try 9 minutes at 68F/20C.

Pastiche · Nov 6, 2005

Thanks Tom.
Unfortunately, no Rodinal on hand...
I'm itching to find out what happens...

Be back in an hour or so...

Pastiche · Nov 6, 2005

Polaroid type 55, @ ASA 32, 10-15min Perceptol . . .

Neither is a beauty of a shot.. but they serve the purporse of validating the usability of the polaroid film independent of it's chem pack.

Thanks very much for all that have furnished the info that served as an impetus to this "discovery" ...

First impressions -

VERY fragile and thin film base. Developing some system for removing the metal tab and the chem. pack in the darkroom will be a must if the film is to be used "convenitonaly". . . . There will be alot of handling of the neg, and having something that can do the cutting, premeasured, is key.

Please ignore the fibers from the paper towel, and.. the ... "nick" in the corner of the lower one... there was also some issue with the top neg folding... or something.. it didnt develop, but that may be b/c I had to bend it to get it into the tank, and then it might not have been covered by the chemistry....

As an asside - I realized that I also have two boxes of type 52, i.e. pos/neg 400 ISO.. but both of those negs came out SOLID black... so they are either gonners, or there is something wonky with the developent... I exposed those at 200 ISO, and still nothing but max density on the neg.

Hey, 1:2 is not so bad

Donald Qualls · Nov 6, 2005

I don't see anything indicating T52 to be a pos/neg film; the negatives are paper. Type 51 is the pos/neg with ISO 400 for prints; it produces a reusable negative rated at ISO 80 in daylight or ISO 50 in tungsten light, or about one stop faster than that from T55; that negative could presumably be developed separately from the pod chemistry.

Type 51

Pastiche · Nov 6, 2005

Hmph!... Well.... I guess I could have misread the box... When I get home tonight Donald I'll look things back over... good grief.... If I discover that I developed two straight pieces of some kind of paper... blasted... that will just be the cake on top of the chery! . .. HA! well.... Thanks Donald, I'll have to get back to you.... and THANKS for calling attention to these *little* details.... like that that sheet of black stuff was not a negative... after all

NikoSperi · Nov 7, 2005

I'm afraid I shot some as early as yesterday; the Type 52 is a positive only 400 ISO. Might explain the black neg?

Pastiche · Nov 7, 2005

hahaha!.. . . yup.... I'm terribly afraid you are right...
It would take quite some time to turn those pure black negs into anything usable ;.). . .

Maybe 20 years in the sun under a lens.... maybe . . .

What really miffs me is that I missed the fact that they were not negs.... I think part of it was the feel of the negs from the Type 55, which are also incredibly thin and flimsy.... just like the "negs" from the type 52....

Well, I guess I can add that to my list of DR bloopers... developed sleeve thinkig it was a negative.... boy... now that's something to be proud of!

Donald Qualls · Nov 7, 2005

I'm slightly surprised you didn't get *something* visible on those T52 negative sheets, though -- I'm used to seeing the paper negatives from, for instance, Type 669 or Type 667 show a very distinct negative image (that almost instantly develops a Sabbatier-like effect in the light); in fact an image that can be scanned like a print to give an interesting, "solarized negative" appearance.

However, the amount of development required is probably very different from that of the T55 negative; if the pods in the 52 are dry, you aren't losing anything but time by experimenting, so you might try developing longer or shorter times, starting by referencing the original peel time recommendations -- even disassemble one in the light and time how long it takes to turn black in your developer, then use that time for developing one exposed in a camera. In the end, you might well get some interesting looking, if low contrast (because high Dmin) negatives that could be scanned and inverted, scanned as is, or even transferred to the original print sheet or another type of paper with a suitable bleach and fix/transfer process that replicates the original Polaroid image reversal. Heck, you might even find something worth peeling unexpired Type 52 to repeat...

Pastiche · Nov 7, 2005

Yeah Donald.. you are right... I just snuck off to the house and poped another T52 in the cam, and indeed, in the one shot that I got something back from, I COULD see *something* on the "negative" . . . Your suggestions of playing around with the thingys is interesting... I think I will give it a whirl with a unexposed neg and some developer in full light... just to see.. what the heck.. like you said, nothing really to loose but a few minutes and a few ml's of developer.... I LOVE experimenting...

RichSBV · Nov 8, 2005

I could be 100% wrong about all this, but...

As I remember, Polaroid used to have the info on their site on how to develop the neg of Type 55 independantly. I'm sure I read it...

And just recently, I also read an article on actually shooting to use that 'black paper neg'. Apparently it's popular with artists for special effects and othe ruses. From what I remember, the neg is more often scanned than used as a standard neg. I think the process involved separating the pos/neg before the time was up. This leaves more material in the neg that the pos. I don't remember if there was any other processing (wash, fix, etc?).

They may not mean much to most of us but those paper negs do have a following...

Pastiche · Nov 8, 2005

Thanks Rich, that is an interesting idea.... if I "discover" anything durring my messin around.. I'll post it.

RichSBV · Nov 8, 2005

I knew that I had recently read this:

http://www.polaroid.com/global/prin...DER<>folder_id=282574488338439&bmLocale=en_US

Pastiche · Nov 8, 2005

cool stuff! I'll have to give it a shot when I get home... just hope that I can find a package with enough developer to catalyze the initial reaction

Alternate Dev for Polaroid 55

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency