Instax 8x10 Alternative to Impossible

Discussion in 'Instant Cameras, Backs and Film' started by ic-racer, Dec 23, 2017.

  1. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    8,645
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Instax 8x10 small.jpg
     
  2. bvy

    bvy Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,244
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Interesting and certainly fun! I prefer the Impossible/PO 8x10 simply because I can lift it to other surfaces.
     
  3. Oren Grad

    Oren Grad Member

    Messages:
    1,086
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Very cool! :smile:
     
  4. OP
    OP
    ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    8,645
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Sometimes these turn into stepping-stone project. Originally a cheaper alternative, but when you look at it, this cost $7.50. Impossible is $17, but you get a complete image. The price difference is not that great.

    If I did buy some Impossible 8x10, what would I need to expose and process it? Special film holders? Special processing apparatus?

    BTW, this was stupid-easy to do. The Instax film slides out of the holder with your thumb. Use 2 sided tape to attach them to a film holder. The tenth one can go on the other side as a test shot. When done, peel the little light trap off the empty Instax cartridge and then the film slides very easily back in the slot.
    After re-filling the cartridge, place it in the Instax camera and press the button, keeping the lens covered.
     
  5. bvy

    bvy Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,244
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Both. It can be a little confusing, and the prices are all over the place, but if you're patient (or just lucky) you can get a set up for around $400. You'll need a motorized Polaroid 8x10 processor (part number 81-01) and either
    a.) a tray and holder combo (81-09 and 81-06 respectively) or,
    b.) the holder that works without the tray (81-05).

    I use the latter set up. It's supposed to be a little more fussy than the holder with tray (which came later and for that reason), but it's all I've used and I've never had a failure. The basic process is: load the sleeved negative in the holder making sure it catches the tab, close the holder, pull the paper dark sleeve, and expose as usual... Then, load the positive sheet into the underside of the holder, make sure it fastens to the negative (another game of tab and slot), put the loaded holder into the processor, and press the button... Wait 20 to 40 minutes depending on the film (the picture sits in a dark chamber) and it's pretty much developed. Clean the rollers after each use; the roller mechanism lifts out of the processor for maintenance.

    Alternately, Calumet made a manual processor which looks pretty nifty, but the prices are laughable.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2017
  6. peter k.

    peter k. Subscriber

    Messages:
    856
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2011
    Location:
    Sedona Az.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Your talking about taping to a 8x10 film holder, correct?
    :cool:
     
  7. OP
    OP
    ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    8,645
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Yes, see the film holder in the picture. Cutting and placing the little two-sided tape pieces was the most time consuming portion of the whole project. Looks simple, but I had to space the tape so that I could feel the top and left edges of the 'index' tapes to line up the Instax films by feel. Then I needed overlap to slide the developing pod under the next film.
    The opposite side of the film holder has just two little tapes to hold a single frame in the middle; the tenth film from the package which is the test image.

    For that image I used my 300mm Fuji at f8 (wanted f5.6, but the lights were too strong; with ISO 800, my Copal 3 only goes to 1/125!)

    The camera bed was extended all the way in front and the rear was pulled out another 150 mm. Probably about 600mm extension for just about 1:1 reproduction.
     
  8. OP
    OP
    ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    8,645
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I thought I had seen a Chuck Close in a similar fashion. Looks like he did this one with multiple 20x24" Polaroids:
    [​IMG]
     
  9. bvy

    bvy Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,244
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Multiple 20x24's? That must approach mural status.

    This is actually a fun technique in general. Cut 120 fills an 8x10 holder nicely. I was a little sloppy here, but it was actually a test for something else...
    CP0029.jpg
     
  10. OP
    OP
    ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    8,645
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    If he had included the other 5 positions, the whole thing would still be a little smaller than his paintings.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. If you have a Photrio account, please log in (and select 'stay logged in') to prevent recurrence of this notice.
,