I Could Survive With Type 55

[Jeremy]

Vaughn, I think that is part of the problem. I think to myself that I could be buying a package of 11x14 film instead of just 20 sheets of <4x5 T-55.

Then again, you don't have to pay for chemistry to develop or fix so there you save some money, plus the time and convenience factor. If I had more $$$ I would be shooting more T55, but alas....

 

[Vaughn]

Vaughn, I think that is part of the problem. I think to myself that I could be buying a package of 11x14 film instead of just 20 sheets of <4x5 T-55.
....

Agree...if I had a wad of dollars to spend and I could buy either T55 or 8x10 film -- but not both, I'd get the 8x10!

Vaughn

 

[BrianShaw]

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

Ditto... but I won't give up my clearing bucket and neg holder just in case I hit the lottery!

 

[donbga]

Ditto... but I won't give up my clearing bucket and neg holder just in case I hit the lottery!

I sold my Polaroid 545i holder a few months ago simply because the film is too damn expensive chemicals or no. I'm happy with TMAX 400 and pyrocat (along with a few more films).

If Kodak would make TMAX 400 in Ready loads I would be a happy camper for long trips and willing to pay for the extra expense.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I was one of the two who voted against the motion. With Type 55, the medium hijacks the photograph. It makes useful training wheels but I put it away a long time ago and never looked back.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The medium doesn't have to hijack the photograph if you compose within the actual Polaroid borders and don't show all the stuff around the edges.

 

[gr82bart]

My vote goes to Type 55 exclusively too. I actually use it as a second generation film. With the Daylab printer and a 4x5 base, I can still shoot my colour slides/transparencies and 'upgrade' to the 4x5 for larger contact prints.

It's a great film. If I had a 4x5 camera, I'd probably shoot it 50/50 with Type 59 for colour.

Regards, Art.

 

[Fintan]

I bought a 5x4 just to use 55, its a superb medium to work in, with or without the borders.

 

[Bob F.]

As with many others, price is the only thing reducing my use. I have not bought a box for over a year now. When it was a quid a shot - and that was not very long ago - the cost was steep but reasonable for what you got. At getting on for 3 quid (55 per 20 sheet box) it has been priced beyond acceptability. A shame.

Cheers, Bob.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

The medium doesn't have to hijack the photograph if you compose within the actual Polaroid borders and don't show all the stuff around the edges.

True. But then why shoot it at all? So you
can shoot a slow and fantastically-expensive sheet?

Look at all of the examples posted or linked in this
thread. Has any cropped out the borders?

Re clearing: I spoke with a Polaroid VP at a trade show
and he confirmed that Polaroid years ago tweaked the
developer so the film could be cleared with tap water.
I never bothered with the voodoo, just cleared the
negatives in water, rubbing gently and taking care not
let fingernails come close to the emulsion.

Sanders

 

[Vaughn]

The medium doesn't have to hijack the photograph if you compose within the actual Polaroid borders and don't show all the stuff around the edges.

Anything can hijack the photograph -- wide angle lenses, polarizing and graduated filters, black skies, even the square format. Basically, anything always used, but not deeply considered.

Vaughn

Edited to add...

One thing that fortunately does not hijack a photograph is the personal opinions of others.

 

[Steve Smith]

I have never tried it. I modified an old Polaroid pack film camera by replacing the lens with a Zeiss Tessar with the intention of using the 665 pack film version. Then they discontinued it!

Steve

 

[Bob F.]

Look Ma: ((there was a url link here which no longer exists)) no borders.

Why use it? Because it is there...

Or, at least, it was before they priced it beyond the stratosphere...

Cheers, Bob.

[edit: Sean, if you read this, "Additional Info" seems to have disappeared from the image view: I know there was some originally as I remember it and I refer to it in a comment further down ]...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The borders aren't the attraction for me, not that there's anything inherently wrong with using the border.

I like Type 55 for convenience when I'm doing something that only requires one or two shots or making a test shot and want the results quickly, and I like it for the tonality of the negative (which is generally thought to be Panatomic-X). I think I've only got one Type 55 in the gallery right now--

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Here's another--

My test shots in this thread are all Type 55--

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Rolleiflexible]

David, how can I disagree with you when Melchior is looking at me?

Of course you are right that one can print Type 55 without
borders. And that you, in fact, are one of those who do.
But 98 percent of Type 55 users use it for the funky borders.
I offered the posted examples in this thread as proof of that.
It's what the vast majority of Type 55 users do.

For test shots, wouldn't Polapan be an easier and cheaper way to go?

Sanders

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The Type 55 neg is sharper for things like lens tests and checking DOF, but Polapan and the other print films are certainly fine for lighting and composition checks. Given how sparingly I use Polaroid these days, it's handier just to have Type 55 for either the print or the neg, so I can use up the whole box before it expires.

Even at $4+ a sheet (that $3 figure is out of date), it seems cheap next to 8x10" Polaroid, which has climbed to about $15 an exposure these days.

 

[JBrunner]

Just a note on the borders.. I print with them, because they are there. If they are mounted the print so they show or not, is a later decision, but I like keeping the option. The posting that shows the border is simply a neg scan, as this was printed larger than I can scan. The mother in this case had some mounted both ways, according to the individual tastes of her family members.

 

[fhovie]

I like the borders .... but - I have never printed the borders. Trendy presentations do not make classic images. I have a box right here ... it is from e-bay and I think it was about $2 a sheet. It is my 4th box. It will take a year or more for me to use it. It will likely get used for some kind of experimental image making like all the rest did. It is a great film. It is smoother than FP4 in pcat and less twitchy than tech-pan. I like the look it has but not as much as I like the gritty sharpness of FP4 in pcat-p - which in 4x5 has to be 3'x4' to see any grain.

 

[eric]

Its been ages since I used the stuff. I went to my local store and asked how much it was. He said "are you as student, hint hint, say yes". So I said yes and the price was $73 a box.

Can someone tell me what the dimensions of the the neg is? (I know its a 4x5) I think its slightly largers than a 4x5 film? Is that right? I forgot. Not sure if the stuff will fit my 4x5 Printfile holders or my 4x5 scanner neg holder.

 

[fhovie]

It fits in my glass neg carrier - there are perferations if you want to use them

Its been ages since I used the stuff. I went to my local store and asked how much it was. He said "are you as student, hint hint, say yes". So I said yes and the price was $73 a box.

Can someone tell me what the dimensions of the the neg is? (I know its a 4x5) I think its slightly largers than a 4x5 film? Is that right? I forgot. Not sure if the stuff will fit my 4x5 Printfile holders or my 4x5 scanner neg holder.