Good or Bad?

[RattyMouse]

Here's a shot from my recently bought SX-70. I made this image with the exposure control over to full dark. I made one at neutral and it was massively overexposed.

As you can see, the bottom of this image is very poorly developed. Lots of areas where development was uneven, causing strange artifacts. Is this normal for Impossible film? This is version 2.0 of the black and white film.

I appreciate any feedback!

[url=https://flic.kr/p/H4Wby4] image by E_O_S, on Flickr[/URL]

 

[Photo Engineer]

It is bad for SX70 film. It indicates some sort of "goo" spread problem.

PE

 

[Alan9940]

No, that is not normal. Looks like you may have dirty rollers and/or the image was exposed to strong light as it ejected. IP claims that their 2.0 film is a lot less susceptible to light (it kinda is), but I've found that direct sunlight hitting the film as it ejects is not good; shade seems to be OK. Regardless, though, once the film ejects ya wanna get it into a pocket or some relatively dark place to develop. It could also be that you simply have a single defective sheet of film...did the entire pack reveal this same anomaly?

 

[RattyMouse]

No, that is not normal. Looks like you may have dirty rollers and/or the image was exposed to strong light as it ejected. IP claims that their 2.0 film is a lot less susceptible to light (it kinda is), but I've found that direct sunlight hitting the film as it ejects is not good; shade seems to be OK. Regardless, though, once the film ejects ya wanna get it into a pocket or some relatively dark place to develop. It could also be that you simply have a single defective sheet of film...did the entire pack reveal this same anomaly?

I turned the film upside down and placed it against my folded SX-70 immediately after ejection. Even with that precaution the exposure isnt good.

I think my experiments with Impossible film are over.

Thanks for yours and PE's help.

 

[Alan9940]

RattyMouse,

It's my understanding that the first couple of seconds as the film is being ejected is critical with regard to light exposure. Folks use all kinds of "tricks" to shield the film such as ejecting into a black plastic bag, ejecting into the empty cardboard film box, use of the normally trashed darkslide as a make-shift frog tongue, an actual frog tongue, etc. Even turning the film upside down and placing against the bottom of your SX-70 might be too late depending on external light levels. FWIW, anyway.

Yeah, I've shot quite a bit of B&W 2.0 film as well as the prior version and IMO it's tricky to deal with and cumbersome to learn. For example, I've read (and believe) that the actual film speed of the B&W 2.0 film is somewhere around ISO 300. Given that the SX-70 is expecting ISO 160 film it's pretty easy to see why the IP film is over-exposed with the L/D wheel set at the center mark; and why we have to turn the wheel all the way to dark to get even close to a correct exposure. I've taken to using colored filters or ND filters over the lens to reduce the speed of the film which works pretty well. The 2.0 film seems to have more contrast than the prior version, but that's another story...

Lately, I'm finding more fun and enjoyment shooting the color film. I'm not much of a color photographer--been shooting B&W for 40+ years--but the soft, muted, sometimes washed out color of their color film seems to appeal to me; and I don't know why! If you haven't already, you might want to play with a couple packs of the color film just to see how that goes for you. Order from IP to ensure you get the latest version; there is actual a newer emulsion available now.

Good luck!

 

[RattyMouse]

RattyMouse,

It's my understanding that the first couple of seconds as the film is being ejected is critical with regard to light exposure. Folks use all kinds of "tricks" to shield the film such as ejecting into a black plastic bag, ejecting into the empty cardboard film box, use of the normally trashed darkslide as a make-shift frog tongue, an actual frog tongue, etc. Even turning the film upside down and placing against the bottom of your SX-70 might be too late depending on external light levels. FWIW, anyway.

Yeah, I've shot quite a bit of B&W 2.0 film as well as the prior version and IMO it's tricky to deal with and cumbersome to learn. For example, I've read (and believe) that the actual film speed of the B&W 2.0 film is somewhere around ISO 300. Given that the SX-70 is expecting ISO 160 film it's pretty easy to see why the IP film is over-exposed with the L/D wheel set at the center mark; and why we have to turn the wheel all the way to dark to get even close to a correct exposure. I've taken to using colored filters or ND filters over the lens to reduce the speed of the film which works pretty well. The 2.0 film seems to have more contrast than the prior version, but that's another story...

Lately, I'm finding more fun and enjoyment shooting the color film. I'm not much of a color photographer--been shooting B&W for 40+ years--but the soft, muted, sometimes washed out color of their color film seems to appeal to me; and I don't know why! If you haven't already, you might want to play with a couple packs of the color film just to see how that goes for you. Order from IP to ensure you get the latest version; there is actual a newer emulsion available now.

Good luck!

Thanks Alan. I will shoot a pack of color film before I move on from the SX-70, just for the experience. Is there a version 2.0 of color film as well? I have not seen any boxes marked 2.0 so far.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I worked with instant products for several years. IMHO, it is goo spread. The indication is that it starts at the bottom, where the goo filled pod is located and ascends upwards decreasing in intensity as goo spread improves. It may be a film wet problem, a pod fill problem, bubbles in the pod, a pod burst problem or any number of problems or combinations. There is an off chance that this may also involve shutdown with uneven breakthrough of the acid shut down layer, but I doubt it.

PE

 

[RattyMouse]

I worked with instant products for several years. IMHO, it is goo spread. The indication is that it starts at the bottom, where the goo filled pod is located and ascends upwards decreasing in intensity as goo spread improves. It may be a film wet problem, a pod fill problem, bubbles in the pod, a pod burst problem or any number of problems or combinations. There is an off chance that this may also involve shutdown with uneven breakthrough of the acid shut down layer, but I doubt it.

PE

It's always sad to see a trained chemist resort to words like "goo".

Joking aside, thanks PE, I understand that my SX-70 might have some roller issues and/or the Impossible Film isnt perfect compared to other instant films.

Did you work on the Kodak version of INSTAX film? That's great stuff. You did a great job if that was one your products.

 

[Alan9940]

Thanks Alan. I will shoot a pack of color film before I move on from the SX-70, just for the experience. Is there a version 2.0 of color film as well? I have not seen any boxes marked 2.0 so far.

The very latest color version packaging looks like this:

Dead Link Removed

The packs I have in the fridge are a beta version leading up to the final production release. IMO it's much better than any prior version; and develops a little faster, too! Is it up to Polaroid Time Zero level, yet? In a word...no. But, the IP film does get better with each new release.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Did you work on the Kodak version of INSTAX film? That's great stuff. You did a great job if that was one your products.

I worked on the Kodak Instant System for 7 years

 

[Photo Engineer]

It's always sad to see a trained chemist resort to words like "goo".

Joking aside, thanks PE, I understand that my SX-70 might have some roller issues and/or the Impossible Film isnt perfect compared to other instant films.

Did you work on the Kodak version of INSTAX film? That's great stuff. You did a great job if that was one your products.

I worked on the next generation of PR10 which was never sold due to the lawsuit. To work on it, I had to study PR10 and SX70 to become familiar with all instant products. I was give an SX70 camera, a PR10 camera and stacks of film for both. I was told "go, shoot, learn". I also worked on Ektaflex C and R.

It is called "goo" because that is what it looks like. It is basically KOH and CMC in water. The pod is a foil and plastic wrapped packet that can burst along one edge. It is wrapped in an indicator coating that turns red if the pod leaks. The film has a "V" shaped insert in the middle to ensure good spread. If it is not there, or if it malfunctions, the spread is bad. The pod is overfilled and there is an acid trap at the other end to prevent harm to the user. All of this must work right or you get what you see. That includes rollers, but those can be diagnosed simply by looking for dirt.

PE

 

[mooseontheloose]

Have you taken a look at some of the photo galleries on Flickr? (The Impossible Project, Polaroid, etc). You'll find that what you are experiencing is pretty common (and not considered a problem). However, there are also some examples of clear, contrasty film with no spreading problems. My images tend to be more similar to yours, I always have some goo spread problems on the bottom of the image.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

The question that comes to my mind is; How did Polaroid get right right so many years ago?

 

[dreamingartemis]

The question that comes to my mind is; How did Polaroid get right right so many years ago?

No offence, but I think they got it right before because they had an actual budget for R&D. From what I have been seeing with TIP, they have poured more into marketing than into the actual product itself.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ummmm......

Guys, Kodak did the R&D and made the products for Polaroid at the beginning, and showed them how to make them on their own!

PE

 

[Kirks518]

If this was my film, first thing I would do is clean and check my rollers, as I agree with PE that it's more like a spreading issue with the (I'll use the scientific term) goo. If it still happened after cleaning the rollers, I'd probably send it in ti TIP, and ask them to tell me why it's doing what it's doing. Just because it is 'common' with flickr posts, doesn't mean tht all those people have clean rollers, or that it should be that way. I would also try a pack of color as suggested, and if it doesn't happen with the color product, I would ask for a replacement or my money back, as that would suggest a film defect.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Ummmm......

Guys, Kodak did the R&D and made the products for Polaroid at the beginning, and showed them how to make them on their own!

PE

The SX-70 integral print product was completely a Polaroid product (and never produced a print as good as the Kodak Instant System). However, I always felt that the Polaroid camera equipment was first rate and very innovative.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

As you can see, the bottom of this image is very poorly developed. Lots of areas where development was uneven, causing strange artifacts. Is this normal for Impossible film? This is version 2.0 of the black and white film.

I had some of the beta-test films TIP sold at discount prices as "surprise packages" some years ago due to minor quality issues: Most of my Pictures looked like that. After learning from the Internet that this is the new art, I gave up on TIP.

 

[RattyMouse]

Have you taken a look at some of the photo galleries on Flickr? (The Impossible Project, Polaroid, etc). You'll find that what you are experiencing is pretty common (and not considered a problem). However, there are also some examples of clear, contrasty film with no spreading problems. My images tend to be more similar to yours, I always have some goo spread problems on the bottom of the image.

I did do that but I need to look more now that I actually have prints in hand. I guess you are satisfied with the types of images your Polaroid puts out using Impossible Film, right? I seem to remember you shoot a fair amount of this film so given the high cost, you must have an overall positive feeling.

 

[RattyMouse]

If this was my film, first thing I would do is clean and check my rollers, as I agree with PE that it's more like a spreading issue with the (I'll use the scientific term) goo. If it still happened after cleaning the rollers, I'd probably send it in ti TIP, and ask them to tell me why it's doing what it's doing. Just because it is 'common' with flickr posts, doesn't mean tht all those people have clean rollers, or that it should be that way. I would also try a pack of color as suggested, and if it doesn't happen with the color product, I would ask for a replacement or my money back, as that would suggest a film defect.

Once my camera is empty of film, I'll look closely at the rollers for any signs of dirt or debris stuck to them. If they are clean and free of any external dirt, I should assume that the film is the problem then, correct?

 

[Prest_400]

Once my camera is empty of film, I'll look closely at the rollers for any signs of dirt or debris stuck to them. If they are clean and free of any external dirt, I should assume that the film is the problem then, correct?

On the SX70 you may be able to open the loading door without ill effects to clean the rollers. The pack has a piece of plastic that acts as lightseal and no light may get in.

I've had a couple of frames with that issue (but the round blemish was not as big). Most of my frames have 1mm of diffusion on the bottom which is probably due to the spread. The BW film likes shade as far I have found, and gives good contrast.

 

[mooseontheloose]

I did do that but I need to look more now that I actually have prints in hand. I guess you are satisfied with the types of images your Polaroid puts out using Impossible Film, right? I seem to remember you shoot a fair amount of this film so given the high cost, you must have an overall positive feeling.

Actually Ratty, when I first started shooting I didn't have this problem, it seems more noticeable with the 2.0 so I haven't been shooting much as all (but that's true in general since I'm so busy at work). Honestly, I never planned to use the polaroids (impossibles?) as is, as my intent with shooting this film is to do lifts and other alternative techniques. So minor defects around the edges are not necessarily a concern for me. That said, having done my homework in order to contribute to this thread I have come to realise that people are getting much better results than I have so maybe I need to have a better look at my camera too.

 

[removed account4]

hi rattymouse:
sorry to see your posted film issue.
at least it didnt' cost between 13 + 17$ / exposure !

 

[RattyMouse]

Actually Ratty, when I first started shooting I didn't have this problem, it seems more noticeable with the 2.0 so I haven't been shooting much as all (but that's true in general since I'm so busy at work). Honestly, I never planned to use the polaroids (impossibles?) as is, as my intent with shooting this film is to do lifts and other alternative techniques. So minor defects around the edges are not necessarily a concern for me. That said, having done my homework in order to contribute to this thread I have come to realise that people are getting much better results than I have so maybe I need to have a better look at my camera too.

Thanks for your feedback! Good luck with your Polariod!

 

[Kirks518]

Once my camera is empty of film, I'll look closely at the rollers for any signs of dirt or debris stuck to them. If they are clean and free of any external dirt, I should assume that the film is the problem then, correct?

That would be my guess. And if TIP says that's the way it's supposed to be, then I will use up my Fuji pack film, and then become a 100% Instax user for instant.