You need a neutral density filter or filters. Impossible makes them. Or you can you other methods. Do a google search for "using a neutral density filter with an SX70"
Wow. Soft morning sun is too much for this film? Are you kidding me?
I was not using 600 speed film.If you were using the 600 speed film in the SX70, it could be necessary to use the ND filter. Otherwise, the full dark setting should be enough to get a decent exposure.
Did you shield the film after ejection? The 2.0 says you can eject it directly into sunlight but it's another variable and easily taken care of with the box that the film pack was sold in.
Did you buy the camera from someone who tested it recently with film?
Since you burned through an entire pack already, you should be able to test the camera's response to light. Does it ever stop down the aperture?
Does it ever stop down the aperture?
Sort of. I turned the film face down for a few mins but did not put it in a box or anything like that.
I see no sign of any Aperture when I look into the lens. All I can see is the shutter. Is there documented proof there is an aperture?Oh, right... It does have a sort of aperture/shutter blade that looks like it may be capable of stopping down to f/22 or so...
I will later when I have time.Can you show us the results?
I'll see if I can do this.I don't have my SX-70 loaded with film at the moment, but, at least on the Polaroid Image1200 (Spectra camera), if you kept the shutter release held down after making the photo, it wouldn't eject the film until you released your finger pressure. I would do this on very hot or cold days so that I could eject the film indoors under normal temperature.
You might be able to do that on the SX-70 so that you can eject the film into a box or a shaded area rather than direct sunlight.
I see no sign of any Aperture when I look into the lens. All I can see is the shutter. Is there documented proof there is an aperture?
Here you can see the "closed" SX-70 shutter blade with half of the "cats eye" iris showing.
View attachment 158346
I second the need for shielding in full sun. Shade without shielding is ok and gets very nice results, perhaps with a very slight contrast loss. Full sun? Obliteration.Ratty, the film is expensive, but you may have to bite the bullet and spend some money on film to experiment with different lighting conditions if you want to use the camera/film properly and not get frustrated all the time.
On the Impossible site they do mention that the 2.0 film does seem to be faster. Also, even though 2.0 does not need to be shielded in most lighting conditions, I think it's still recommended in full sun. I used to use a small black plastic bag (from B&W paper) taped to the camera to shield the film when it first came out (v 1.0) but then I got a frog tongue which made it easier. I still use it for the 2.0 version. You could do two photos in the same light - one with your normal procedure, one with immediate coverage, see if it makes a difference. If not, then you know that that's not the issue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?