Fare Thee Well, Type 665...........

[ineffablething]

Forgive me if this is old news, but it's new to me and quite sickening.

Polaroid's website has announced that they are discontinuing type 665 film and current stocks will be gone by the first quarter 2006.

It really makes me feel ill.....

 

[Matthewt]

Me too.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

This is a big blow.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Next will be the 55, I guess.
It's a shame.

 

[avandesande]

Is this a positive, or a negative?

 

[ann]

both, similar to 55

 

[bill schwab]

Next will be the 55...

I certainly hope not! Apparently they are phasing out components used in the manufacture of 665, but they claim it will not effect the manufacture of T-55.

We can only hope.

Site says they only have 77 more paks of 665 in Polaroid stock. Snap it up kids!

Bill

 

[Donald Qualls]

Worth noting that Type 55 and Type 665/85 use different film stocks -- they're one stop different film speed, and even if all other components are identical, discontinuation of the base film means they have to either drop the film, or retool the T55 negative line to cut the 665 and 85 formats and and remarket the new, slightly different pack films. Just not economical, I expect.

Unlike 665/85, T55 is a pretty good seller, but one never does know...

Meanwhile, this belongs in Product Availability...

 

[eric]

Oh crap! I just got my 'roid 250 working.

 

[Gabe Racz]

Great timing, I just picked up a 440. Lucky it only cost $5 I guess . . .

 

[Donald Qualls]

There are still plenty of nice films that will let you use those 250 and 440 and such models. Heck, I've got a 350 as well as my AutoPin 210. For most of what I'd use a Polaroid to do, however, I'll be using either 690 or 667; if I want a negative, I'll use my plate cameras, which are slightly less convenient to use than the autoexposure, rangefinder focused Polaroid, but are a good bit cheaper per B&W negative than 665 -- and I don't find myself with $18 worth of 665 still loaded when I want to shoot color in the 'Roid...

For that matter, if and when Polaroid dumps the pack films entirely, it won't be any big deal to convert the nice 100-250-350-360-450 Polaroids to use film holders and sheet film, either 3x4, or 9x12 cm or 4x5 with reduced image area. Matter of fact, I might start looking around for another one specifically *to* convert. Spring back and a few 3x4 film holders, and a nice RF. Hmmm...

 

[jason314159]

Polaroid's website has announced that they are discontinuing type 665 film and current stocks will be gone by the first quarter 2006.

It really makes me feel ill.....

I pulled out some 665 I had lying around with an expiration of 1/05. It looked ok when I took it out of the wrapper but it had not kept well at all...I was able to get a few images off it but it made a brown goopy mess of the Polaroid adapter. If you go into survivalist mode and make a large purchase of this stuff make sure that you only buy what you will use until the expiration date because it does not keep well.

-JLC

 

[Donald Qualls]

Best long-term storage for Polaroid materials is refrigerated, but not frozen, stored flat so the gel doesn't migrate in the pod. It varies some, but with refrigeration most Polaroid materials will last a while past their expiration; long, long ago I shot a roll of Type 47 that was a year past date and it was fine (even with ASA 3000 speed), while more recently (5-6 years ago) I shot an SX-70 pack of Time-Zero that was two years expired, and it worked well -- but its twin didn't survive the intervening time in a drawer; the battery was dead and the film didn't develop even after I transferred it to a pack that still had a live battery; pods were dry.

So, overall, don't figure on a LOT of life past expiration with any Polaroid product -- but some do better than others.

 

[Monophoto]

Remind me again why I bought that 405 back.

 

[Donald Qualls]

You probably bought it because Type 665 was half the price of Type 55.

It's still useful, though -- it'll let you shoot ISO 3000 Type 667, for less cost per 30-second print than the film-only price of big-brand 4x5 films. It'll also let you use Type 690 to get beautiful color prints in 90 seconds, which go a long way to checking lighting and exposure, if not composition (because smaller) before committing a sheet of transparency at $3 per plus another $3 to process...

If you won't want the 405, though, PM me and I'll make you an offer (even if I have to find or fabricate a Graflok back to use it).

 

[gwatson]

Just a thought, but the trouble I've had with out-of-date polaroid film is the gel solidifying. Would it be possible to expose the film, pull it without breaking the gel pod and dev'ing it in something homemade? Does anyone know the brew? The more I think about it, the more daft it sounds, but if 55 goes, well...

Geoff

 

[Donald Qualls]

That works with Type 55 and is done fairly regularly, and could be done with 665 or 85 by modifying the back (to remove the rollers, though it might be a challenge getting the second tab with such a modified back). With pack films, you'd have to pull the tabs in the dark, because there's nothing to stick the negative and positive together without the gel and the negative would be exposed as soon as you pulled it around the corner with the first tab.

With other types of Polaroid, the negative is paper with a black backing, and though it might be possible to develop it separately, it's almost certainly more pain than it's worth (probably also true of 665/85). It might be possible to replace the gel in a darkroom, but you'd have to separate the two layers (not stuck together, so that's easy), remove the old pod, replace it with a fresh one or a glob of replacement developing gel, then roll the sandwich together (in registration, in the dark) and wait for development -- after first coming up with a replacement for the Polaroid gel and testing it for correct time with a particular material.

When Polaroid finally stops selling film, it'll be a lot easier to just convert the cameras with good enough lenses and RFs to either roll film or conventional sheet film holders -- or just put them on the shelf next to the film pack box cameras and falling plate models.

 

[gwatson]

Hi Donald

Thanks for reply. You say that it is done quite often with 55. Disregarding the positive, do you have any idea what kind of developer can be used as a substitute? I've never heard it done before and can't find anything on the net regarding what developer to use. Cheers.

Geoff

 

[ann]

you can use any type of film developer with 55. Developer as you would any other type of sheet film. Be aware that this film is not the same size as 4x5 so if you are using hangers it is going to be a bit of a problem.

 

[gr82bart]

Next will be the 55, I guess.

NOOOOOOOOO!!!! I just discovered Type 55!

Art.

 

[Daniel Lawton]

Dam, I was contemplating buying a polaroid back for my Mamiya and giving the 665 a try. I guess my mind is made up now. In all honesty, I'm simply amazed that Polaroid is still in existence in the digital age. I would imagine that almost all professionals who need to preview a shot or complex lighting setup use digital (even film shooters). I doubt there is enough of a demand in the fine art market for Polaroid materials but I hope I am wrong.

 

[gwatson]

I don't know any photographers who use polaroid to preview anymore, but I think 55 is such a great film, and I know I'm not alone, that I hope the fine art market keeps it afloat. It won't last forever though. This is why I'm looking into ways of storing it longterm. I don't need the developer or the positive, I just want the neg. Whether I can replicate it using normal dev methods is a different matter. Oh well, let's hope.

Thanks for your reply Ann, BTW. A new thread is needed on this methinks.

Geoff

 

[Dave Parker]

I don't know any photographers who use polaroid to preview anymore, but I think 55 is such a great film, and I know I'm not alone, that I hope the fine art market keeps it afloat. It won't last forever though. This is why I'm looking into ways of storing it longterm. I don't need the developer or the positive, I just want the neg. Whether I can replicate it using normal dev methods is a different matter. Oh well, let's hope.

Thanks for your reply Ann, BTW. A new thread is needed on this methinks.

Geoff

I beg your pardon! I still use polaroid for previewing, and I consider myself a photographer! LOL

I have polaroid backs for my LF and my MF gear as well as a NPC back for my 35mm stuff.

Dave

 

[gwatson]

Apologies Dave. That should have read "I don't know many photographers who use polaroid to preview, but those who do are generally the best (and at least one of them makes cracking GG)". ;-)

It was more aimed at the fact that most of the ad/commercial photographers I know have all gone dig and therefore don't use polaroid anymore. I don't see colour polaroid film lasting much longer really. However, most of those who use 55 are generally after the neg it produces (aren't they?) rather than the fact that it provides a positive to preview (that being a bonus), so digital, hopefully, has not affected its popularity so much. Well, it's a hope I cling to..

Geoff

 

[gr82bart]

I don't know any photographers who use polaroid to preview anymore, ...

What the heck are you talking about? I still use Polaroids to check my light setups and preview. I also use it to attach to the model release.

Regards, Art.