DIY Instant film pods

So I've been playing around with the idea of hand making some experimental film that would fit in the 30 and 40 series Polaroid cameras (just scaled up/down between the two), but am having trouble with making a reagent pod that will burst evenly and without excessive force.
So far I've tried using mixes of tin foil, plain paper, tape, and waxed freezer paper, and for the bursting seal tried simple folds (on the foil, not very airtight), two separate pieces of tape, adhesive side together (that will separate under pressure), and several heat seals with the freezer paper. They all seem to either not seal enough and leak, or seal too well and not burst at all, or unevenly.
Chemistry and film materials are secondary right now as I figure this out, so please don't tell me it can't be done.
Also, I've already seen this: https://www.instructables.com/id/Making-instant-film-at-home-polaroid-55-/, and tried following his pod making but it hasn't worked. The "reagent" I'm testing all of these seals with has been chocolate syrup because, as memory serves, it has a similar consistency to the reagent of FP-100c pods. I'm too young to have used real Polaroid materials before they were long gone.

Any ideas out there for different pod materials or building techniques?

Sam_D said:

chocolate syrup because, as memory serves, it has a similar consistency to the reagent of FP-100c pods. I'm too young to have used real Polaroid materials before they were long gone.

Any ideas out there for different pod materials or building techniques?

Click to expand...

Wish you had thought of that 47 years ago before I was pulling lots of exposures out of oscilloscope cameras.
That pungent smell is still with me.

I've no ideas for you, but I have thought about trying the same thing. I know I'd not be able to make something good, but it always seemed like a fun project just to learn and hopefully get some sort of result.

if memory serves the "pod" looked like a piece of brown masking tape on the end of the print/paper - a slight bulge/hump. the roller then easily and evenly sqeegeed the gloop onto the print. it didn't seem like there was a lot of pressure involved, "simply" engineering.

one side seemed firmly affixed, the other end less so, and the rollers pushed the gloop out through that side.

Its not so much that I don't know how to imitate the original construction- I have used film right here that I'm basing dimensions off of- its that I don't have the capability of creating an exact replica. For that I would need the special plastic coated foil they used, crimper for the side seals, and a heat sealer with very precise control. I have tape, paper, freezer paper, a wood burner, and the heat sealer from a vacuum packer that I've used so far. The heat seal would seem to work best, but it seals too well or too thickly, and so can't burst under pressure from the rollers.

By the way, for rollers right now I'm using a round pen and rolling it over a sheet of paper folded in half with the pod inside. I know it has comparable pressure to actual camera rollers because I did do a few tests with some rollers out of a pack film camera (the removable type).

Have you tried using the roller back off an old Polaroid camera for your experiments?

I'm not sure what you mean by the roller back, I've been using the removable roller assembly used in the rigid bodied packfilm cameras. For making a good seal it doesn't really matter what kind of roller I use, so long as it provides consistent pressure across the whole surface. The distance between them, or their size, is only important to getting the thickness of reagent correct between the film sandwich, which is why I've been getting by using a pen on a flat surface.

Maybe instead of trying to get it to all break at once, and start off with a even flow of developer across the pod, set up a few weak points in your seal, so that it breaks at 3 or 4 points. That would be easier to engineer. Then give it a bit of space to flood before it hits the film, to even itself out. The trick will be setting up the exact height between the rollers, and keeping a low ceiling over the film, inbetween the front and back papers, so the volume is forced to occupy more horizontal space. You don't need the developer to spread evenly across, just coat the film evenly as it passes. If you throw in some extra developer and exactly control the height of the roller in relation to the height of the paper/film, you should be able to still get an even spread (and maybe have a trough at the end for the extra to settle into).

I'm just spitballing here. My closest analogy comes from coating paper using a glass rod. With that, you can pretty much make a puddle or two in the middle, and just push the rod across. Keeping the right pressure pretty much ensures it will coat evenly once you've pushed it a little distance, as the capillary action against the rod with spread the emulsion out on it's own. I usually run it back and forth a bit before rolling it over the paper, but that's mainly to ensure it coats evenly at the beginning without wasting paper and emulsion. One things for sure, it's never evenly spaced across the rod, but does get evenly spaced across the paper (if done right).

We found that the best spread was achieved by having a separator in the center of the long end of the pod, so that it broke in two segments, one on each side of the separator. The goo then formed two wave fronts that joined as they moved down the film. This joining happened almost immediately to give a solid straight wave.

PE

I didn't have access to the heat sealer tonight to test the center separated pod idea, but it does seem like I need to be testing using rollers rather than my more crude pen method. I made some better seals with the cut tape method (where tape is folded over the breaking edge, then cut so the fold is gone but adhesive is still holding it together). Also, looking at some old pods I noticed that the side crimps are angled, so that the goo gets pushed more toward the center as it gets squeezed out. I tried this in the first picture and it seemed to work well.
I'll keep updating as I experiment.

Looks to me like your chocalate syrup experiments could form the basis for a nice art installation .

That looks vaguely like a viscosity problem. You might want to try getting some Carboxy Methyl Cellulose. It is sold under several brand names at drug stores in the US. It has many useful purposes that need not be discussed here.

Anyhow, by varying concentration you can vary the viscosity up or down.

PE

I was a kid at the height of the Polaroid peel apart craze. I remember the enormous amounts of litter in and around trashcans at the scenic views out west.
Polaroid should have been nationalized or bailed out. The loss of the technology is a shame. My favorite thing was type 669 pack film, a handful of Magicubes and my Polaroid Big Shot portrait camera. I have some 30 year old prints, absolutely stunning. The last generations of peel apart Polaroid film were amazing.

Greetings everyone,

Has anyone heard of any progress with DIY/Home Made instant film yet?
I'm am super interested as I would love to start shooting instant film for portraits.

Thanks so much in advance for any help and time offered.
Please stay safe out there!
Sincerely,
Kevin H.

This would be a biggish project, and the investment required, even with what's available on the original Polaroid materials, makes it seem unlikely to happen without going where New55 did -- into a commercial product so expensive it's in a narrow, narrow niche.

That said, I've seen at least one example on the web of someone making their own peel-apart. It sort of worked, but I don't think they developed in/at the camera; rather, spread the goo and joined the print and ngeative in a darkroom.

Hello Donald Qualls!

Wow, thank you so much for your reply!


Your name popped up during my researching marathon yesterday/today.


On the New55Project blog, someone posted your MonoBath formula.
http://new55project.blogspot.com/2010/01/donal-qualls-successful-monobath.html



Well, I've been reading papers/wikipedia and obsessively scouring info about people in the business now.


Looks like the major players are 20x24Studio, FamousFormat (Previosly New55), Fuji, and Polaroid Originals (previously the Impossible Project).


It looks like 20x24 Studio Berlin and OneInstant (Supersense) get the negative film for their tear a part style instant film product from 20x24studio.com. I'm not clear if 20x24Studio is making new negatives or using up old stock/materials they saved from the dumpster.


But the negative seems like the biggest thing to source.
It's where the complex parts of the whole product is, that being the dyes, emulsion and other layers.


I'm feeling if New55/FamousFormat can figure out monochome tear a part type instant film (they are apparently also researching color) there must be a way.
I'm guessing this becauese New55 aparently went of business due to supply chain issues regarding the reagent pods (which they now hand make themselves) so they must have found a way to themselves make the negative portion.
(On their website you see one photograph of color instant film examples they are I guess developing now)


Now, if pods are the issue, I was thinking exactly what you mentioned Donald, that is to spread the goo (as OneInstant uses the word), manually in a dark room.
The original poster suggested the same thing, about manually applying the goo/reagent, then manually connecting the positve (receiver) and negative.


I'm really not sure the next step would be.
Do you have any advice?

Integral instant film seems easier, but I read they are not as archival (which is something through art theory I can cope with).

Here is short paper on instant film and preservation of said film.
https://silo.tips/download/the-composition-and-preservation-of-instant-films

Here is another paper, this one has nice diagrams explaining the tear a part style, instant film negative portion.
http://www.imaging.org/site/PDFS/Papers/1997/IST-0-4/20.pdf


I have a Bachelors of Fine Art in Photography from Ryerson University but I still don't consider myself a photographer haha.
Ideally, I want to shoot more before I feel I can claim that title

While, I am very interested in Wet Plate Collodion (I took a workshop with Quinn Jacobson - and acquring almost everything in terms of supplies), I can't shake the feeling of an one off/art object that is in color that a color instant film would provide/create.
(**Edit** - The goal is hand made instant film for ultra large format, also would love the better speed/sensitivity)



Well, thanks for reading this Donald!
Thanks to anyone else with input also!

I hope you and everyone else stay safe out there.

Cheers,
Kevin H.

I remember some of the discussions that preceded New55 having anything resembling a product -- back in 2003-2005 (I made up my HC-110 monobath in 2003). Generally, the hard part of making B&W peel apart seems to have been the receptor sheet (which becomes the positive print) and the chemical pod -- both what goes in it (a hyper-concentrated monobath with a gelling agent) and how to make the pod rupture in a controlled and consistent way when the sandwich is pulled through the rollers.

If you want to try making this on your own, the first thing you need is to come up with a receptor -- a coated paper "print" that will accept migrating silver from fixing the negative as it develops, and convince it to a) reduce to metal, while b) staying in the receptor sheet. There were some prolonged discussions on this on photo.net, don't know if their old message base still exists, though (this is 15+ years ago). You can test the receptor by sandwiching an exposed negative with a receptor soaked in a monobath (in today's market, I'd probably start with Cinestill Df96, but FF No. 3 or No. 5 would probably work about as well). This has to be done in total darkness until the develop/fix time has passed (this is why the pods are super concentrated -- they need to work in one minute, two at most, and most monobaths for tank development need at least three or four). With the two layers brayed together, if your receptor is working right you should see an image appear in about four minutes with Df96. By that time, the negative will be all done, unless the developer has exhausted due to quantity limits.

In the end, to develop the sandwich in daylight, outside the camera, you'll need everything protected by fully opaque cover sheets or envelope (like a Type 55 sheath), but that's relatively easy.

The negative is the easy part -- it's just film. In theory, with a customized developing pod, it could be almost any B&W film, though obviously there was a lot of difference between Type 55 and, say, Fuji FP3000 negative emulsions. What's the same between them is that they're halide in gelatin, and the pod chemistry has to both develop the negative, and mobilize the fixed silver so it can develop in the receptor sheet.

I haven't done much with instant film other than using the new Polaroid 600 film for some time. I have a few questions that popped into my head over the last few days though:

In your monobath formula, what role does the ammonia play? Is it some sort of chemical that makes the halides developable once the fixer diffuses them from the negative?
In the link to the instructables article in my first post, the guy used plain photo paper as a receiver, though it had been fixed and dried to remove any halides from it. What's your take on using that, at least for experimental purposes?
To make a higher concentration, faster acting monobath would you just up the HC-110 concentration?
Do you know anything about the old Polaroid print coater? I have a couple bottles still from some old swinger film I bought once. What does it do chemically? I know it makes a clear, almost lacquer like coating to protect the surface of the print, but I heard once it was also used to prevent fading somehow.

I was telling Qebs in a DM what little I knew about color instant materials also. Anyone know about any of this and want to chime in?

Hey Donald,

Thanks so much for the awesome reply!
Lot's of stuff to think about.

I've been binge researching and I'm starting to free like the direct positive color paper reversal process will suit my needs technically and philosophically lol
(not to sound pretentious, I just mean my artistic theory on a one off image - no negative).

Do you have any links by chance on home made color negative paper?
I'm thinking of starting a post in these forums and other forums about this.
I would love to have color negative paper that is much higher in light sensitivity so I can have more depth of field and the ability to use better lighting
techniques (e.g. strobes with modifiers or wider shots/full body shots with light further from subject).

Thanks so much Donald and Sam for your continued guidance

Have a great weekend all!
Be safe!
Cheers,
Kevin

Sam_D said:

In your monobath formula, what role does the ammonia play? Is it some sort of chemical that makes the halides developable once the fixer diffuses them from the negative?
In the link to the instructables article in my first post, the guy used plain photo paper as a receiver, though it had been fixed and dried to remove any halides from it. What's your take on using that, at least for experimental purposes?
To make a higher concentration, faster acting monobath would you just up the HC-110 concentration?
Do you know anything about the old Polaroid print coater? I have a couple bottles still from some old swinger film I bought once. What does it do chemically? I know it makes a clear, almost lacquer like coating to protect the surface of the print, but I heard once it was also used to prevent fading somehow.

Click to expand...

Please note: NOT AN EXPERT on instant process and materials!

My HC-110 monobath was created as an experiment for tank developing standard B&W film, and tested with Tri-X shot in a fixed-everything plastic camera, under conditions that let me evaluate true film speed (since monobaths had a reputation for losing speed, because fixing and development are in a race). I had no expectation of it contributing to reinvention of an instant process, and I'm pretty sure what was in the New55 pods (either the originals or the last generation) would not have been recognizable as related to mine. In other words, I just gave them the idea by making a monobath that worked fast enough to use rapid fixer.

The ammonia was aimed at maintaining alkalinity, to offset the acid rapid fixer concentrate I used, and nothing more. I could just as readily have used sodium carbonate or borax, but since HC-110 (then) had several ammonia-based components anyway, it was clear that the ammonia wouldn't add (much) fog, and it was easier/faster to mix than a powder.

What I wound up with was very comparable, in processing time and overall result, to current Cinestill Df96 monobath, with the result that today I'll buy the Cinestill product (in powder form, for cheaper/faster shipping and to save a couple bucks on the product itself) rather than mix my own from the formula I published.

I'd accept partial credit for the resurgence of monobaths over the past fifteen or so years, due to having demonstrated that it was not only possible but very practical to make a monobath work well with rapid fixer (which, in turn, is necessary for tabular grain films, as all of them that I'm aware of will fail to fully fix with plain hypo fixer, even with extended fixing time). That demonstration, however, was the only contribution I feel I made to the New55 process or product.

Qebs said:

Do you have any links by chance on home made color negative paper?
I'm thinking of starting a post in these forums and other forums about this.
I would love to have color negative paper that is much higher in light sensitivity so I can have more depth of field and the ability to use better lighting
techniques (e.g. strobes with modifiers or wider shots/full body shots with light further from subject).

Click to expand...

I have very limited experience with color processing, never mind color printing. However, what I'd consider the easiest course for making color reversal positives is to shoot chromes and mount them on a white backing. Homemade color emulsions is way, WAY beyond my knowledge base, probably also beyond practicality. You'd need three differently sensitized emulsion layers (at least one using a sensitizing dye that isn't easy to come by and may not be publicly known), each with correct dye couplers, two filter layers, and all need to be uniformly thin. You'd probably be ahead to try to reproduce autochrome (that's what Polaroid did for their instant slide film from the 1980s) vs. trying to make your own (faster than RA-4) color paper negatives or reversal prints.

You can gain one or (almost) two stops by preflashing your paper -- giving it a light exposure just barely below where it starts to produce a visible gray when developed, so the actual exposure in camera/under the enlarger starts at the toe of the response curve rather than having to first fill in that non-responsive level of exposure with the image. This helps shadow detail a lot, and slightly decreases overall contrast, though with color materials it's complicated by needing to color balance the preflash as well as the image exposure. That would/should get your RA-4 paper up to around ISO 12-16 or better, which many studio photographers (shooting wet plate collodion, for instance, or hand coated gelatin dry plates) have used with full body shots and either hot lights or strobes, but you'd have to use a number of sheets and the matching chemistry life just to find the correct preflash value/color.

Hey Donald!

Awesome! Thank you for such an in depth reply!
It is an honor to receive these replies heheh


Okay, I will look more into autochromes!

Also, Thank you so much for the suggestion to pre-flash the paper.
I didn't know it would increase the speed of the paper, but it is great to know also that it will reduce the contrast which I've seen on youtube is an issue.

Coincidentally, I took a course on Wet Plate from Quinn Jacobson and acquired a lot of the equipment needed.
I just still don't have much room to shoot and process but I hope in the near future to investigate both direct positive color reversal prints and tintypes.

Thank you so much again for your knowledge sharing!
Please be safe and take care
Cheers!
Kevin H.