I Could Survive With Type 55

[Alex Hawley]

I've been using Polaroid Type 55 now for a little over two years. Don't use it continually, but off and on, semi-regularly. It's become my favorite 4x5 B&W film. If I were limited to just one LF camera and film, it would be a lightweight 4x5 field camera and I'd feed it Type 55 exclusively.

Seems like I can do nearly everything that I normally photograph with Type 55. I know there's not a whole lot that can be done with development control. In those iffy situations, if I can get a decent Type 55 print, then I can get a good negative. That's one great thing about it; the instant feedback available before making the final exposure.

I really like being able to process the negatives without the darkroom, plus not having to fiddle with developer and stop baths. When I'm processing for the negative, I develop for one minute, clear, fix, tone with a little RST for permanence more than anything. The entire process is much shorter in time span than it using conventional developer. And its all done with the lights on!

A couple weeks ago I mounted/matted several of my Type 55 prints. They ain't bad to look at and I've come to enjoy them. Even went back and recoated some of the ones that needed it and they came out fine.

I guess I'm posting this because I don't see much discussion these days about Polaroid materials. Too bad I think. Type 55 makes a first-rate negative. Polaroid makes good material that allows just as much creativity as any other photo material. They deserve our support as much as any manufacturer does.

 

[Vaughn]

Now only if it came in 8x10! (and 11x14, 12x20, et al!)

Vaughn

PS -- do you find the neg and print to be the same ASA?

Also, have you noticed any change in the "rebate" (non-image area) of the film when toning? I did when I toned in RST for a boost in contrast -- it actually reversed the tone of the rebate. Not a problem unless one prints to include the rebate portion and show prints from toned and untoned negs. together.

 

[bdial]

Now only if it came in 8x10! (and 11x14, 12x20, et al!)

Does this count?

http://www.polaroid.com/studio/20x24/index.html

 

[ulysses19]

Type 55

What does everyone use to clear their negs? I have always used the recommended sodium sulfite solution, but would love to use something that didn't involve mixing powdered chemicals. Incidentally, someone asked about the film vs print speed. I shoot for the negative at 25 ISO and for the positive at 50 ISO.

<todd>

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've occasionally cleared the negs in saltwater (about a teaspoon in a 5x7" tray half full of water), and it seems to work fine.

I rate the neg at EI 40 and the print at EI 80. In flat light I can usually split the difference and get both at EI 50.

 

[Kino]

I've had generally good results with what little type 55 I have shot, but am freaked out by the clearing bath you have to carry around and how easy it is to scratch the negs that jostle around in there.

I am sure there are strategies for dealing with that, but I am such a casual user of the stuff, I have never devised any real solutions for intense use of type 55.

It seems a very expensive way to shoot, but in reality, I think it pretty much even when you add up all the chemistry and time to do the traditional darkroom processing of negative; not to mention the turn around if you are like me and screw up a lot (but I hardly think you do that as much...).

I also tend to use outdated type 55 -- cheaper that way, but the results can be a bit unpredictable, as you can see in the attached "frog" image.

 

[Charles Webb]

Polaroid 55 was a way of life for me for many years, now I cannot afford to use it! I used to buy several cases of it at a time, but now..................you know the rest of the story.

Charlie...................................

 

[Alex Hawley]

What does everyone use to clear their negs? I have always used the recommended sodium sulfite solution, but would love to use something that didn't involve mixing powdered chemicals. Incidentally, someone asked about the film vs print speed. I shoot for the negative at 25 ISO and for the positive at 50 ISO.

<todd>

For clearing, I use perma-wash diluted 25ml/Liter.

I shoot the neg at 25, the print at 50 or 64. There have been times when I got a decent print from the sheet I shot for the neg, but usually those prints are too overexposed.

 

[MikeK]

I've had generally good results with what little type 55 I have shot, but am freaked out by the clearing bath you have to carry around and how easy it is to scratch the negs that jostle around in there.

I am sure there are strategies for dealing with that, but I am such a casual user of the stuff, I have never devised any real solutions for intense use of type 55.

It seems a very expensive way to shoot, but in reality, I think it pretty much even when you add up all the chemistry and time to do the traditional darkroom processing of negative; not to mention the turn around if you are like me and screw up a lot (but I hardly think you do that as much...).

I used to shoot a lot of Type 55, became diffucult to purchase locally and typically was out of date. That said, you really did get great negatives

I used to remove the film from the holder without developing and store them in a box until I got home. By the way, if you are careful you can remove the unprocessed film and process in your developer of choice.

Mike

 

[Chazzy]

Polaroid 55 was a way of life for me for many years, now I cannot afford to use it! I used to buy several cases of it at a time, but now..................you know the rest of the story.

The price has certainly gone up very quickly. Even outdated Type 55 on eBay goes for too much. My impression is that Badger Graphic has the best price on the stuff. Or has anyone found it cheaper elsewhere?

 

[amuderick]

I love the stuff. I am a newbie to it and have much to learn. It has so much potential. I shoot 55 and a stockpile of 665 I have accumulated.

I clear my negatives in plain water with no problems. When I shoot in the field I stick the negatives in a ziploc 1/4 filled with water to keep them moist until I get home. I haven't had any problems with scratching.

Here is a pic taken with Type 665:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=470844351&size=l

 

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Alex. I use Type 55 for my still life work in my studio. I am working on a flower series with it and it is great film. ISO is usually 25-32. I shoot for the neg. Great look to it and sharp as hell. I will post some pic's when I can. I've been getting great 11x14 and 16x20 enlargements from Type 55. 8x10's to scan will come soon. The Calla Lillies in my gallery are on Type 55. If I had only one 4x5 film I would not be upset if it was Polaroid 55!

Jim

 

[jmdavis]

I like it for special use or when I don't feel like loading holders and want the look that it has. My biggest problem with it is contrast. I always feel like the contrast is just a little low. That feeling might have been due to my paper, however. I used some grade 3 Ilfobrom Friday night and I really liked the look of the Type 55 contacts that I made with it.

 

[Vaughn]

I love the stuff. I am a newbie to it and have much to learn. It has so much potential. <snip>

Nice shot! Mark Kletts' work with T55 is wonderful. Elaine Ling of Toronto, Canada is another who has done extensive work with T55...beautiful work -- enlarged to 20x24 and holds up wondefully.

Her website is :

http://www.elaineling.com/photographs.html

Well worth looking at if one is interested in T55 in the landscape!

vaughn

 

[Alex Hawley]

Her website is :

http://www.elaineling.com/photographs.html

Well worth looking at if one is interested in T55 in the landscape!

vaughn

Outstanding link Vaughn. Thanks for posting it. Ling's work is fabulous.

 

[JBrunner]

I've been using Polaroid Type 55 now for a little over two years. Don't use it continually, but off and on, semi-regularly. It's become my favorite 4x5 B&W film. If I were limited to just one LF camera and film, it would be a lightweight 4x5 field camera and I'd feed it Type 55 exclusively.

Seems like I can do nearly everything that I normally photograph with Type 55. I know there's not a whole lot that can be done with development control. In those iffy situations, if I can get a decent Type 55 print, then I can get a good negative. That's one great thing about it; the instant feedback available before making the final exposure.

I really like being able to process the negatives without the darkroom, plus not having to fiddle with developer and stop baths. When I'm processing for the negative, I develop for one minute, clear, fix, tone with a little RST for permanence more than anything. The entire process is much shorter in time span than it using conventional developer. And its all done with the lights on!

A couple weeks ago I mounted/matted several of my Type 55 prints. They ain't bad to look at and I've come to enjoy them. Even went back and recoated some of the ones that needed it and they came out fine.

I guess I'm posting this because I don't see much discussion these days about Polaroid materials. Too bad I think. Type 55 makes a first-rate negative. Polaroid makes good material that allows just as much creativity as any other photo material. They deserve our support as much as any manufacturer does.

I clear it in permawash. You can control development if you don't process the film in the packet. Just remove it without running it through the rollers, and take it home, peel out the neg and process it the way you want.

Here is a favorite, the imperfections make perfect it for my tastes, a nice departure from my normal "straight" 8x10 stuff.

 

[Peter Schrager]

type 55

I have a little tank that holds the about 12 negatives at a time in the clearing solution of your choice. lens and repro sometimes has them as well as Calumet. I'm sure if enough people wanted them someone could make them...
Peter

 

[Peter Schrager]

type 55

I already agree with the above posts. the film is exquisite but has gotten too expensive. the negatives are darn superb!! I think I read in the Ansel books that he made wall sized pix from the film and I tend to believe it!! I' will say it here for newbies to read: if you want to learn to do photography learn with polaroid materials. they are absolutely superb and what you learn from immediate feedback will amaze you...
Best, Peter

 

[philldresser]

I like it but it is too expensive for me

Phill

 

[Jeremy]

I wish you'd had another choice on the poll: "I like it, but it's too expensive for me to use anymore."

Type 55 is great stuff and I really love the tonality, but I can shoot TMax400 in 4x5 for much cheaper than Type 55. At $3/shot I just can't afford to splurge anymore.

 

[Vaughn]

For fun, here is a pair of T55 contact ptints...straight scan from print.

Ladder, Indian Canyon, Yosemite National Park

Camera: Gowland Pocket View
Lens: Caltar IIN 150mm f5.6

Vaughn

 

[Vaughn]

Here is another two -- printed together, but not a pair like the other.

The neg on the right has been selenium toned -- it shows the change to the "rebate" that I got.

Same camera and lens as previous. Both are taken in Yosemite National Park

Vaughn

 

[Alex Hawley]

At $3/shot I just can't afford to splurge anymore.

I hear you Jeremy. That's the main reason I don't keep a steady stock of it. The prices on all of Polaroid's film materials have increased significantly in the last two years. That's really too bad.

 

[athanasius80]

Agreeing with Jeremy. I love the stuff too, but I'm on a "Arista.edu" budget.

 

[Vaughn]

Type 55 is great stuff and I really love the tonality, but I can shoot TMax400 in 4x5 for much cheaper than Type 55. At $3/shot I just can't afford to splurge anymore.

$3 a shot is not that bad -- if one is use to using 8x10 or larger!

Vaughn