Image quality of Fujifilm Instax Wide .

[Oren Grad]

So it seems the only effective way of processing the film after a shot is to put it back in the camera , take a "shot" with the lens covered , and allow it to do it's business and roll it out to develop ?
Rather than putting it on a board and rolling something over it ?

That's right. So far I've yet to see anyone report being successful with any method for "rolling" the prints manually, outside of a camera or back designed for the film.

 

[neilt3]

That's right. So far I've yet to see anyone report being successful with any method for "rolling" the prints manually, outside of a camera or back designed for the film.

Thanks' .
Providing the film is replaced back in the pack with the emulsion side facing out , does it matter which way in it goes ?
i.e , if the film is put back in 180 degrees out , will it still develop O.K ?
I'm not sure how the Instax film works , whether it has a chemical pocket on the leading edge or not thats spread onto the exposed area as it passes threw the rollers .

 

[Daire Quinlan]

I'm not sure how the Instax film works , whether it has a chemical pocket on the leading edge or not thats spread onto the exposed area as it passes threw the rollers .

That's exactly how it works, so it has to be put back in the same way it was taken out, i.e. with the chemical pod at the 'top' of the pack (where the ejection slot is) so it goes through the rollers first, bursts, and spreads the chemicals all over the exposed sheet. I'm not sure if emulsion side out/in would even matter TBH, I don't think I ever paid too much attention when I was putting it back into the pack.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Instax prints (like the 1970s vintage Kodak instant prints) are exposed through the back side. There'll be a very smooth side, and one where you can feel the edge frame and pod. Originally, the side with the palpable frame and pod would have been toward the lens, but as long as the pod enters the rollers first, it probably doesn't make any difference which side is "front" after exposing in another camera and returning the print to the pack for processing.

 

[vickersdc]

I've just got an Fuji Instax 100 that uses the Wide film... with a view to getting the LomoGraflok back (which I see has been put back to July '21). Anyway, I have a Cambo C240 6x7 back for my Cambo 4x5 and the Wide film fits (just) into it. So, this weekend, I'm hoping to transfer a sheet from the 100 into the 6x7 and see what happens.

Here's a shot from today with the Fuji 100:

 

[Cholentpot]

This past fall I loaded sheets of instax wide into my Crown Graphic by placing the film into 4x5 sheets with slits cut into them.

I don't have any shots to share but they came out surprisingly sharp and rich. Come spring I'll do it again. I was very impressed at what the film was capable of.

 

[Oren Grad]

... with a view to getting the LomoGraflok back (which I see has been put back to July '21).

Per Lomography, July is for the second production batch. The first batch, which AFAIK still has an estimated delivery date of April, sold out.

 

[vickersdc]

Per Lomography, July is for the second production batch. The first batch, which AFAIK still has an estimated delivery date of April, sold out.

Ah, okay - that's positive news! It'll be good to see the community get behind this as a project to ensure the likes of Lomography and Instax film remains available.

 

[Don_ih]

Instax rollers would have a larger gap between them than Polaroid 100 rollers, since the integrated film is thicker than the peel-apart. A Spectra set of rollers might develop Instax, but you'd have to rig it up. Maybe a pasta roller would work, if you could set the gap on it thin enough. The problem with using a rolling pin on a flat surface is you will press down too hard and effectively smear the chemicals too thin across the print. If you had two thin strips of steel, maybe a couple of layers of pop-can aluminum, to set on either side of the piece of film as you pressed on the rolling pin, that might set the right gap for that type of developing attempt.

 

[Wayne]

 

[Donald Qualls]

Per Lomography, July is for the second production batch. The first batch, which AFAIK still has an estimated delivery date of April, sold out.

If I had anything with a 4x5 Graflok back that wasn't a pinhole camera, I'd have ordered one of these already. I do have a cobbled-up Polaroid 4x5 pack film back for my Graphic View, but because of its size and shape, I'm not sure I could do the same jackleg job of mounting the Instax back.

 

[Coldstored]

I am really looking forward to the Lomography Graflok Back. too bad about the delay in delivery though.

 

[vickersdc]

I am really looking forward to the Lomography Graflok Back. too bad about the delay in delivery though.

Yes, any order after March 25th is destined for an October '21 delivery date.

 

[choiliefan]

I wonder if the knob-wound roller mechanism off an old Kodak Colorburst or EK4 would be suitable for developing these films.
Seems wide enough.

I've shot quite a few sheets of Mini in Graflex XA, Speed and Century Graphics with mixed results.
The XA was designed for 3X4 Polaroid so could be cobbled to do Instax Wide. A worthy project.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yes, any order after March 25th is destined for an October '21 delivery date.

Yep, I haven't ordered mine (I was waiting to be sure I could get my Speed Graphic converted to Graflok), but late October isn't a big problem, I might have the conversion done by then.

I wonder if the knob-wound roller mechanism off an old Kodak Colorburst or EK4 would be suitable for developing these films.
Seems wide enough.

I had one of those, back around 1980. As I recall, I even got a (tiny) check from Kodak as part of their settlement with Polaroid. If you have one, you'd have to measure, but I don't think it was wide enough for Instax Wide. It would handle Square for certain, though.